I 






'"'! I I'M 

"liliHl 







I. 



.NV^' 



■^-P 



•^v^ V^ 



^^ 



I 



THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

BINDING SPECIFICATION SLIP 



/ 



Smithsonian Library Stamp 



.Seefirstslip, pattern, 

or dunimy for 

DIRECTIONS 

Changes in title are 
noted above 



(0167-1—5/17/54) 



\ 




S' 



>^-^^ 



9"^/^:^^.<^^ 



\ 



^■^^-^ ^ 



^d 



SPEECHES 



AHD 



FORENSIC ARGUMENTS. 



BY DAIVIEL WEBSTER. |7& ""^^^^ 



VOL. I. 



E I G H T Tl EDITION 



BOSTON: 

'Y A 1' I' A N , W n I T T i; M ( » K V. , AND M A ^ <> N 



I ,S .-, 



1 






DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS, to wit : 

n^ •» I J , , District Clerk's Office. 

BE It remembered that on the twenty-ninth day of November, A. D. 1830 in the fiftv-fifth 
year of the Independence of the Un.tkd Stages of America. Perkin anl Jllrvh^ 
of die said district, have deposited in this office the title of a book the right Xrff tlmv 
claim as Proprietors, in the words following, to wit: ° ^^Ileleo^ uiey 

"Speeches and Forensic Arguments. By Daniel Webster." 
In conformity to the Act of the Congress .,f the United States, entitled " An Act for tl»e 

Ac on ', \TrT.''^ 'T'' '"''"'' ^''""•o^/'>« 'i""^- «l'^''-"i'> mentioned;" and also to an 
Act entitled An Act snpplementarv to an Act, entitled, a:. Act for tlie encouragement of 
le..rn,ng, by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to the Authors and piopiTe oTs 
of such copies during the tunes therein mentione.l; and extending the benefits thereof to the 
arts of designing, engraving and etching historical and other prints » 

JNO. W. DAVIS i ^'*''* of the District 
' X of Massachusettt. 



5 c. 



PREFACE. 



The present generation of AjTierican citizens seems to have 
a part to act scarcely less remaikable than the preceding. 
Our immediate ancestors are, indeed, singularly distinguished as 
the founders of our Free Institutions; but we are ourselves 
almost as critically, and, for usefulness at least, as fortunately 
situated. In the view of the sagacious observer, we arc ob- 
jects of as profound and fearful interest as were our Fathers. 
The ultimate success of our political system depends, perhaps, 
nearly as much on the first generation that grows up under 
them, as on tliat by wliich they were framed and organized. 

It is our part not only to exhibit to the world a practical 
illustration of the influence of the Federal Constitution, but to 
define and determine its construction; to apply its provisions 
to unforeseen exigences, and to cases contemplated by its 
framers, as they may arise under unexpected circumstances 
and new modifications; to give, in short, its iiitluence to the 
public sentiment, on questions of deep and permanent interest; 
and thus, in all probability, to establish in the community, 
habits of thinking and of action, which will allcct tlie public 
concerns as long as tlie Union shall exist. It is not altogether 
in paper constitutions, however skilfully devised or precisely 
expressed, to control tlie ailministralion; the habits of the 



/ / 



iv PREFACE. 

national mind, the course of legislative policy and judicial 
decision, the customs of the government, will in practice more 
or less affect the received meaning of the Constitution, and so 
become a part of the public law. 

On the public men of this age, therefore, rests a responsi- 
bility of no ordinary kind. To the friends of rational liberty 
and popular happiness they cannot be regarded but as objects 
of deep and singular interest. Their course is all important to 
the State. The productions of such of them as incorporate 
their opinions and spirit, with the national literature and national 
politics, may be among the richest and best gifts of Provi- 
dence to the land. The results of great powers and large 
experience in public affairs, committed to writing in any country 
and any age, can never be disregarded or neglected; but the 
lessons of civil and political wisdom, and the tone of social 
and patriotic feeling, expressed in the w^orks of our own dis- 
tinguished Statesmen of the present generation, are more 
emphatically important. They may be regarded strictly 
" above all price," the most precious and most sacred of the 
national treasures; as they will probably constitute the nearest 
approximation to a conservative principle in our political insti- 
tutions, which our state of society admits. 

Of this character, in an eminent degree, the publishers of 
this volume look upon the works of.Mr. Webster; and having 
obtained his consent to their undertaking, they now present 
it to the community, in strong confidence that they are doing 
important service to the country. 

Among individuals who have grown into distinction altogeth- 
er under the existing Federal Government, it is not invidious to 
say, that few or none are more conspicuous. Endowed by 
nature with extraordinary powers, he has cuhivated them in a 



PnEFACE. T 

manner and to an extent, most propitious for his owti fame, and 
for tlie honor and benefit of his country; presenting at once a 
splendid model of Uie character developed under our republi- 
can institutions, and an illustrious instance of the power of 
chaiacter, thus developed, to preserve and improve those insti- 
tutions. 

To an extent of practice and a degree of success in die pro- 
fession of the Law, rarely equalled in any age or country; to 
experience in public atfairs as great as his years allow ; to sin- 
gular powers of conception, habits of discrunination, and the 
faculty of populai- reasoning such as renders his eloquence pe- 
culiar, and gives it in a great degree a character of its own ; to 
large and liberal views of things ; to a surprising laniiliarity w iili 
the great features of our own domestic and foreign policy since 
the foundation of the government, and w ith the course of other 
governments, — to all these traits of Mr. Webster's character 
and history, we are, by a coincidence as uncommon as it is 
admirable, permitted to add die most pure and honorable prin- 
ciple, all the domestic and sociiU virtues, containing in Uiem- 
selves die only certain pledges of public good faidi and love of 
country, and consecrating the man to die affections of his age 
and of posterity. 

We look upon it as eminently fortunate, for the country and 
for mankind, that such a man has not merely left Uie impress 
of his mind on die professional and ofiicial transactions in w hich 
he has been engaged, but has already found occasion to secure 
a perpetual memorial of many of his opinions upon our history, 
institutions, and princip;d objects of legislation and jurisprudence; 
as well as a monument of liis patriotic and humane sentinu'^its, 
in the literature of his country. ( )f other individuals of splendid 
genius, and powerful induenctJ in their day, death has left lui im- 
palpable shadow only, with posterity. Mr. Wkbsti:u, should he 



VI PREFACE. 

be cut off without another opportunity of exerting his powers for 
tlie benefit of the public or his friends, cannot thus pass from tlie 
memory of men. He would still be to be seen, in the true 
features of his character, in those productions of his mind, 
which are already before the public. 

In conclusion we may be permitted to add, that several of 
the speeches and addresses contained in this volume, possessing 
a character of more permanent and general interest, have been 
translated and published in most of the languages of Europe. 
And we are not without authority for saying, that they have 
been regarded, by men of enlightened judgments and cultivated 
taste, as fine examples of forensic and popular eloquence. In 
the language of one of the most eminent statesmen of England, 
some of these speeches have been read in that country, with 
"no less admiration of their eloquence, than satisfaction in the 
soundness and ability of their general views." This tribute, 
coming as it does from those who are not apt to over-estimate 
the intellectual power or literary taste of our country, may oe 
regarded by us, with an honest pride, as evidence of uncommor 
merit. As such, we offer this volume of Mr. Webster's 
speeches to our countrymen, in full confidence that they will 
sustain the high reputation they have acquired for political 
wisdom and true eloquence. 



3 



CONTENTS. 



Discourse delivered at Plymouth, in Commemoration of the first Settlement 

of New England.— Dec. 22, 1820 25 

Address delivered at the laying of the Comer Stone of the Bunker Iliil Monu- 
ment. — June 17, 1825. ...... ... 57 

DiscoDRSE in Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John Adams and 

Thomas JelFurson, delivered in Faneuil Ilall, Boston. — .^ug. 2, 1826. . 71 

Speech delivered at a .Meeting of Citizens of Boston, held in Fnneuil Ilall on 
the e\eniiig of .April 3, 1825, preparatory.to the General Election in .Mas- 
sachusetts. . ... .... .... 07 

Speech m Faneuil Ilall, on Thursday, June 5th, 1828, at a public dinner given 

him hy the Citizens of Boston, as a mark of respect for his public services. 102 

AnouMENT in the Case, the Trustees of Dartmouth College vs. William H. 
Woodward, before the Jsupreme Court of the United States, ou the 10th 
day of .March, 1818 110 

AaouMRNT in the Impeachment of James Prescott, before the Senate of 

Maasachusetti*. — 1821, 138 

Arqu.ment in the Case of Gibbons vs. Ogden, in the Supremo Court of the 

United States, February Term, 1824 170 

Arcumknt in the Case of Ogdcn vs. Saunders, in the Supreme Court of the 

United State.1, January Term, 1827 185 

- Remarks in the Convention of Delegates cho!<cn to revise the Cotutitution of 

Ma«achus«tts, upon the resolution relative to Outha of Olhco. 1821. . . lOT 

Rkmarich in the Convention, upon the Resolution to divide the Conuiion- 

wealtii into Districts for the choice of Senatorr* according to population. 200 

Remarks in the Convention upon a Resolution to alter lh«> (^>nstitution, so 
that Judicial ( Ulicers shall In- removable by the (■'oxenior and (ounril up- 
on the adiln-ss of two thirds (iruitead of a majority) of each branch of tite 
Legislature, and also th.it ih.. LegiMlalure shall hiivo |K>wer to create a 
Supreme Court of I'miity and a ('i)iirl (if Appiiilf. .... 217 

Speech on tli<- Hank of the United States, delivered in the Mouse of Uepre- 

•entatives of till! I nitrd .><latrs, Jnii 1, 1815. ..... 222 



/ 



Vlll CONTENTS. 

Speech on a Resolution relative to the more effectual collection of the public 
Revenue, delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States. 
1816. 232 

Speech on the Greek Revolution, delivered in the House of Representatives 

of the United States, Jan. 19, 1823. . 241 

Speech upon the Tariff; delivered in the House of Representatives of the 

United States, April, 1824 265 

Speech in the Senate of the United States, on the Tariff Bill.— May 9, 1828. 307 

Speech upon the Panama Mission; delivered in the House of Representatives 

of the United States.— April, 1826 322 

Speech in the Senate of the United States, on the Bill for the relief of the 

surviving Officers of the Revolution. — April 25, 1828 351 

Speeches in the Senate of the United States, on the Resolution of Mr. Foote 

respecting the sale, &c. of Public Lands. — Jan. 1830. .... 353 

Remarks in the Senate of the United States, on the application for the erec- 
tion of a Breakwater at Nantucket. — 1828 433 

Introdtjctory Lecture, read to the Boston Mechanics' Institution, at the 

opening of the Course of Lectures. — Nov. 12, 1828. . . . 439 

Argument on the Trial of John F. Knapp, for the INIurder of Joseph White, 
Esq. of Salem, in the county of Essex, Massachusetts; on the night of the 
6th of April, 1830 450 

Remarks in the House of Representatives of the United States, on the Bill to 

amend the Judiciary System. — Jan. 4, 1826. ..... 490 

MISCELLANIES. 

ExAJMiN ATioN of the remarks in the Quarterly Reviewr on the Laws of Cred- 
itor and Debtor in the United States. (1820.) 510 

Letter of Mr. Webster, addressed to Rev. Louis Dwight, Secretary of the 
Prison Discipline Society, on the subject of Imprisonment for Debt. — May 
2, 1830 .519 



DISCOURSE 



DELIVERED AT I'T.YMOITTH, IN COMMEMORATION OF THE FIRST 
SETTLEMENT OF NEW ENGLAND. DEC. 22, 1820. 



Let us rejoice that we behold this day. Let us he thankful that 
we have lived to pee the hrinlit and happv hreaking of the auspicious 
morn, whirh commences the tiiird century of the history of New 
Knaland. Auspicious indeed; brinirincr a happiness hevond the 
c.inmon allotment of Providence to men; fidl of present joy, and 
gildinc with Itright heams the prospect of futurity, is the dawn that 
awakens )is to (he commemoration of the landing of ti»c Pilgrims. 

Living at an epoch which naturidly marks the progress of tin- his- 
tory of our luitivc land, we iiav«' coilie hitlier to cele!>rate the great 
event, with which that history commenced. Forever honored he 
this, the place of our fathers' refuge ! Forever remembered the 
day which saw them, weary and distressed, broken in everything 
but spirit, poor in all but faith and courage, at last secure from the 
dnngers of wintry seas, and impressing this shore with the first foot- 
steps of civilized man ! 

It is a noble faculty of our nature which enables us to connect 
our thouLdils, our sMupathies, and f>ur happinc-ss, with what is dis- 
tant, in plarc or time; and, looking brfi)re and aAcr, to hold com- 
munion at uiice with our ancestors ftnd our po.^tcrity. Human and 
mortal although we are, we are nevertheless not mere insulated i)e- 
ings, wilhnut relation to the past or tb«' future. Neither the point 
of time, nor tlir spot of earth, in which wc j)hysicaily live, boun«ls 
our rational and intellectual enjoyments. Wc live in the past by a 
knowlrdiro of its history; and in the future by hope and anticipa- 
tion. Bv asceudini; to an association with our ancestors; by con- 
templating their examjjle and .studying their character; by partaking 
their sentiments, and imbibing tlu'ir sjiirit; by acc«)mpanying them 
ill their t(»ils, by .'^ynipathi/iim in their sullerings, and rtjuicing in 
their successes and their triumphs, wc mingle our <»wn existence 
witli theirs, atul .seem to belong to their age. ^Vc b»i-oMie their con- 
temporaries, liv«> the lives which they lived, endure what they en- 
dured, and partake in the rewanls which they enjoyed. And in liko 
manner, by running ahuig the line of future time, l»y ciuitemplating 
the pr(»bable fortunes of ihosr who are coming Jilter us; bv atlempt- 
4 



26 

ing something which may promote their happiness, and leave some 
not dishonorable memorial of ourselves for their regard, when we 
shall sleep with the fathers, we protract our own earthly being, and 
seem to crowd whatever is future, as well as all that is past, into the 
narrow compass of our earthly existence. As it is not a vain and 
false, but an exalted and religious imagination, which leads lis to 
raise our thoughts from the orb, which, amidst this universe of 
worlds, the Creator has given us to inhabit, and to send them with 
something of the feeling which nature prompts, and teaches to be 
proper among children of the same Eternal Parent, to the contem- 
plation of the myriads of fellow beings, with which his goodness 
has peopled the infinite of space; — so neither is it false or vain to 
consider ourselves as interested and connected with our whole race, 
through all time; allied to our ancestors; allied to our posterity; 
closely compacted on all sides with others; ourselves being but 
links in the great chain of being, which begins with the origin of 
our race, runs onward through its successive generations, binding 
together the past, the present, and the future, and terminating at 
last, with the consummation of all things earthly, at the throne of 
God. 

There may be, and there often is, indeed, a regard for ancestry, 
which nourishes only a weak pride; as there is also a care for pos- 
terity, which only disguises an habitual avarice, or hides the work- 
ings of a low and groveling vanity. But there is also a moral and 
philosophical respect for our ancestors, which elevates the character 
and improves the heart. JVext to the sense of religious duty and 
moral feeling, T hardly know what should bear with stronger obli- 
gation on a liberal and enlightened mind, than a consciousness of 
alliance with excellence which is departed; and a consciousness, 
too, that in its acts and conduct, and even in its sentiments and 
thoughts, it may be actively operating on the happiness of those 
who come after it. Poetry is found to have i'ew stronger concep- 
tions, by which it would affect or overwhelm the mind," than those 
in which it presents the moving and speaking image of the departed 
dead to the senses of the living. This belongs to poetry, only be- 
cause it is congenial to our nature. Poetry is, in this respect, but 
the handmaid of true philosophy and morality; it deals with us as 
human beings, naturally reverencing those whose visible connexion 
with this state of existence is severed, and who may yet exercise 
we know not what sympathy with ourselves; — and when it carries 
us forward, also, and shows us the long continued result of all the 
good we do, in the prosperity of those who follow us, till it bears us 
from ourselves, and absorbs us in an intense interest for what shall 
happen to the generations at'ter us, it speaks only in the language 
of our nature, and affects us with sentiments which belong to us as 
humaii beings. 

Standing in this relation to our ancestors and our posterity, we 
are assembled on this memorable spot, to perform the duties which 
that relation, and the present occasion, impose upon us. We have 
come to this Rock, to record here our homage for our Pilgrim Fath- 
ers; our sympathy in their sufferings; our gratitudp for their la- 
bors; our admiration of their virtues; our veneration tor their 



27 

piety; and our atta<-limfnt to tlmsr priiiciplrs of rivil and rfIi:iiou9 
libc-rtv, wliicli ti>e\ rnc»»uiiter«d liie diuigcis ol' tlic ociuii, tin storms 
of heaven, the violence ol" sava«;es, disease, exile, and famine, to 
enjoy and to establish. — And we would leave here, also, for the 
I'tiKMutions which are risin<r up rapidly to till our pla<:cs, smne 
|)rool", tlial we have endeavoined to transmit the great inheritance 
unuuiiaired; that in our estimate of public principles, and private 
\irnit', in our v«iieralion of rolipion and piety; in our devotion to 
civil and rcli<.Mous liberty; in onr ri-pard to whatever advances hu- 
man knowlediie, or imi)roves human hai)piness, we are not altogether 
nnwoithv of our oriLMii. 

There is a local ie( ling, connected with this occasion, too strong 
to be resisted; a sort of sreHiKs of the place, which inspires and awes us. 
We i'vv] that we are on the spot, where the Hrst scene of our history 
was laid; where the hearths and altars of New England were lirsl 
placed; where Christianity, and civilisation, and letters made theii 
tirst lodgement, in a vast extent of coymtry, covered with a wilderness, 
and peopled by roving barbarians. We are here, at the season of 
tin- year at which the event took place. The imagination irresistibly 
and rapidly draws around us the principal features, and the leading 
characters in the original scene. We cast our eyes abroad on the 
ocean, ami we see wiiere the little bark, with the interesting group 
upou its deck, made its slow progress to the shore. We look around 
us, and l>ehold the hills and promontories, where the anxious eyes 
of our fathers tirst saw the jjlaces of habitation and of rest. We 
ft el the cold which benumbed, and listen to the winds which |)ierced 
them. Beneath us is the Rock, on which New England received 
the feet of the Pilgrims. We seem even to beliolil them, as they 
struggle with the elements, and, with toilsome etlorts, gain the 
shore. We listen to the chiets in council; we sec the vniexainpled 
exhibition of female fortitude and resignation; we hear the whis|)er- 
ings of youthful impatience, and we see, what a painter of tuir own 
has also represented by his pencil, chilled and sliivering childhood, 
houseless, but for a motlnr's arms, couchless but for a mother's 
breast, till our own blood almost freezes. The mild dignity of 
C-.\KVER and of JiKAUioRD; the decisive and soldierlike air and 
maimer of Sta.ndi^ii; the devout T^iku stlr; the enterprising A i- 
i.t,Kio\; the general lirnuiess and llioughtlulness of the whole band; 
their conscious joy for dangers escaped; their deep solicitude about 
dangers to come; their trust in Heaven; their high religious laith, 
full of conlidi-nce and anticipation: — all of these seem to l)elong to 
this place, and to be present upon this occasion, to fill^ us with rev- 
erence and admiration. 

The settlement <>!' .New England by the colony which landed hero 
on th«' twenty-second (»f December, sixteen hundred and twenty, 
allhoiiirh not.tlu^ lir.st Huro|)ean establishment in what now consti- 
tutes the I'nited Stat<>s, was yet so p*'culiar in its causes an<l «'har- 
a<ter, aiul has been folhjwed an«l nm,><t .still be tollowed, by such 
consequences, as to give it a high claim to la.sting conuneinoration. 
On these causes and consejpiences, more than on its immediately ai- 
tcndant circumstances, its importance a.s an historical event de[tends. 
Great actions and striking occurrences, having excited a temporary 




28 

admiration, often pass away and are forgotten, because they leave 
no lasting results, afiiecting the prosperity and happiness of commu- 
nities. Such is frequently the fortune of the most brilliant military 
achievements. Of the ten thousand battles which have been fought; 
of all the fields fertilized with carnage; of the banners which have 
been bathed in blood; of the warriors who have hoped that they had 
risen from the field of conquest to a glory as bright and as durable 
as the stars; how few that continue long to interest mankind ! The 
victory of yesterday is reversed by the defeat of to-day; the star of 
military glory, rising like a meteor, like a meteor has fallen; disgrace 
and disaster hang on the heels of conquest and renown; victor and 
vanquished presently pass away to oblivion, and the world goes 
on in its course, with the loss only of so many lives and so much 
treasure. 

But if this be frequently, or generally, the fortune of military 
achievements, it is not always so. There are enterprises, military 
as well as civil, which sometimes check the current of events, give 
a new turn to human affairs, and transmit their consequences through 
ages. We see their importance in their results, and call them great, 
because great things follow. There have been battles which have 
fixed the fate of nations. These come down to us in history with a 
solid and permanent interest, not created by a display of glittering 
armor, the rush of adverse battalions, the sinking and rising of pen- 
nons, the flight, the pursuit, and the victory; but by their elfect in 
advancing or retarding human knowledge, in overthrowing or estab- 
lishing despotism, in extending or destroying human happiness. 
When the traveller pauses on the plain of Marathon, what are the 
emotions which most strongly agitate his breast? What is that glo- 
rious, recollection, which thrills through his frame, and suffuses his 
eyes? — Not, I imagine, that Grecian skill and Grecian valor were 
here most signally displayed; but that, Greece herself was here 
saved. It is, because to this spot, and to the event which has render- 
ed it immortal, he refers all the succeeding glories of the republic. 
It is because if that day had gone otherwise, Greece had perished. 
It is because he perceives that her philosophers, and orators, her 
poets and painters, her sculptors and architects, her governments 
and free institutions, point backward to Marathon; and that their fu 
ture existence seems to have been suspended on the contingency, 
whether the Persian or the Grecian banner should wave victorious 
in the beams of that day's setting sun. And^as his imagination kin- 
dles at the retrospect, he is transported back to the interesting mo- 
ment, he counts the fearful odds of the contending hosts, his inter- 
est for the result overwhelms him; he trembles, as if it were still 
uncertain, and seems to doubt, whether he may consider Socrates 
and Plato, Demosthenes, Sophocles and Phidias, as secure, yet, to 
himself and to the world. 

" If we conquer," said the Athenian commander on the morning 
of that decisive day, — " If we conquer, we shall make Athens the 
greatest city of Greece." A prophecy, how well lulliUed ! — " If 
God prosper us," might have been the more appropriate language 
of our Fathers, when they landed upon fliis Rock ; — " if God pros- 
per us, we shall here begin a work which shall last for ages; we 



29 

shall plant here a new society, in tlie principles of the fullest liberty, 
and tlie purest rt'li;;i(iM: we shall sulxliie tliis wilderness which is be- 
I'ure us; we shall till this regiKU nl'thf {xreat continent, whieh stretch- 
es almost from pole to pole, with civilisation and Christianity; the 
temples of the true God shall rise, where now ascends the smoke of 
idcrtatrous sacrihce; lields and j^ardens, the flowers of summer, and 
the wavinji and golden harvest of autumn, shall ex tf nd over a thous- 
and hills, and stretch alon<i a thousand valleys, never yet, since the 
creation, reclaimed to the use of civilized nian. We shall whiten 
this coast with the canvass of a prosperous commerce; we shall stud 
the lontj and winding; shore with an hundred cities. That which we 
sow in weakn<'ss shall he raised in strciiixth. From our sincere hut 
houseless worshi|), there shall spring splendid temples to record (iod\s 
goodness; from the simplicity of our social union, there shall arise 
wise and politic constitutions of covernment, full of the liberty 
which we ourselves bring and breathe; from our zeal for learning, 
institutions shall s|)ring which shall scatter the light of knowledge 
tljmughout the land, and, in time, ])aying back where they have bor- 
rowed, shall contribute their part to the great aggregate of human 
knowledge; and our descendants, through all generations, shall look 
buck to this spot, and to this hour, with unabated aflection and re- 
gard." 

A brief remembrance of the causes which led to the settlement 
of this place; some account of the peculiarities and characteristic 
qualities of that settlement, as distiniruished I'rom other instances of 
colonization; a short notice of the progress of New England in the 
great interests of society, during the century which is now elapsed; 
wit 1 a few observations on the principles upon which Sfu-iety and 
government are estai)lislied in this country; — comprise all that can 
be attempted, and much more than can be satisfactorily performed 
on the present occa-^ion. 

(.)!' the motives which influenced the first settlers to a voluntary 
exilcy induced them to relinquish their native country, and to seek an 
asvlnm in this tlien unexplored wilderness, the first and principal, 
no doultl were comiected with Religion. They sought t«> enjoy a 
higher degree of religious freedom, and what thev esteemed a purer 
form of religious worship, than was allowed to their choice, or pre- 
sented to their imitation, in the old world. The love of religious 
hberty is a stronger sentiment, when fullv excited, than an attachment 
to civil or political freedom. Tliat freedom whi<h tin* conscience 
demands, and which men feel bound bv their hopes of salvation to 
conleiid tor, can hardiv fail to be atlain<lli«»k Conscience, in tlie cause 
ol' Keligion, and the worship of the Deity, prepares the mind to act, 
and to sufl'er bevnnd ahno>t all otiier causes.-' It sometimes gives nn 
inq)ulse so irr«sislible, that no fetti-rs of p<>wer or «>f opinion can 
withstand it. History instructs us that this love of religious liberty, 
a compound sentinieut in the breast of man, made up of the clearest 
sense of ri<,'ht, an<i the hi;.'hest conviction of dutv, is able to look the 
sternest despotism in the face, and with means apparently most inad- 
e<piate, to shake principalities and powers. There is n holdncs,'^, a 
spirit of daring, in religious reformers, not to bo measured by the 



hand of power be laid upon it, this oniy seems to augment its force 
and its elasticity, and to cause its action to be more formidable and 
terrible. Human invention has devised nothing, human power has 
compassed nothing that can forcibly restrain it, when it breaks forth 
Nothing can stop it, but to give way to it; nothing can check it, 
but indulgence. It loses its power only when it has gained its ob- 
ject. The principle of toleration, to which the world has come so 
slowly, is at once the most just and the most wise of all principles. 
Even when religious feeling takes a character of extravagance and 
enthusiasm, and seems to threaten the order of society, and shake 
the columns of the social edifice, its principal danger is in its re- 
straint. If it be allowed indulgence and expansion like the elemental 
fires it only agitates and perhaps purifies the atmosphere, while its 
etforts to throw otf restraint would burst the world asunder. 

It is certain, that although many of them were Republicans in 
principle, we have no evidence that our New England ancestors 
would have emigrated, as they did, from their own native country, 
become wanderers in Europe, and finally undertaken the establish- 
ment of a colony here, merely from their dislike of the political sys- 
tems of Europe, They fled not so much trom the civil government, 
as from the Hierarchy, and the laws which enforced conformity to 
the Church Establishment. ]Mr. Robinson had left England as ear- 
ly as sixteen hundred and eight, on account of the persecutions for 
nonconlbrmity, and had retired to Holland. He letl; England, from 
no disappointed ambition in aftairs of state, from no regrets at the 
want of preferment in the church, nor from any motive of distinc- 
tion, or of gain. Uniformity in matters of religion was pressed 
with such extreme rigor, that a voluntary exile seemed the most eli- 
gible mode of escaping from the penalties of noncompliance. The 
accession of Elizabeth had, it is true, quenched the tires of Smith- 
field, and put an end to the easy acquisition of the crown of martyr- 
dom. Her long reign had established the Reformation, but tolera- 
tion was a virtue beyond her conception, and beyond the age. She 
left no example of it to her successor; and he was not of a charac- 
ter which rendered it probable that a sentiment either so wise or so 
liberal should originate with him. At the present period it seems 
incredible, that the learned, accomplished, unassuming, and inoffen- 
sive Robinson should neither be tolerated in his own peaceable 
mode of worship in his own country, nor suffered quietly to depart 
from it. Yet such was the fact. He left his country by stealth, 
that he might elsewhere enjoy those rights which ought to belong 
to men in all countries. The embarkation of the Pilgrims for Hol- 
land is deeply interesting, from its circumstances, and also as it 
marks the character of the times, independently of its connexion 
with names now incorporated with the history of Empire. The em- 
barkation was intended to be in the night, that it might escape the 
notice of the officers of government. Great pains had been taken 
to secure boats, which should come undiscovered to the shore, and 
receive the fugitives; and frecjuent disappointments had been expe- 
rienced in this respect. At lengtii the appointed time came, bring- 
ing with it unusual severity of cold and rain. An unfrequented 
and barren heath, on the shores of Lincolnshire, was the selected 



.•31 

8|iot, whore the feet of the Pilgrims were to tread, for the hiyt time, 
tlic huul !)!' flicir fathers. 

The vessel whicli was to receive them, did not come until the next 
dav, and in the meantime the little hand was collected, and men 
anil women and eliildren and ha;rf]:age were crowded toi.'('ther, in 
melancholv and distressed confusion. The sea was roiifrh, and the 
women and children already sick, Irom their passage down the riv- 
er to the place of endiarkation. . At length the wished ff)r hoat si- 
lently and learfullv approaehey^m* shore, and men and women and 
chihiren, shaking with fear and with cold, as many as the small ves- 
sel could hear, venture ofi" on a dangerous sea. lirunediately the 
advance of horses is heard from hehind, armed men appear, and 
those not yet emharked are seized, and taken into custody. In the 
hurry of the moment, there had hecn no regard to the keeping to- 
gether of families, in (llt'lif^t rmharkation, and 6n account of the 
appearaiic(! of the horsemen, the boat never returned for the resi- 
due. Those who had got away, and those who had not, were in 
equal distress. A storm, of great violence, and long duration, arose 
at sea, which not only protracted the voyage, rendered distressing 
by the want of all those accommodations which the interruption of 
the iwnbarkation had occasioned, but also forced tiie vessid out i»f 
leT course, and menaced immediate shipwreck; while those onshore, 
when thev were dismissed from the custody of the otHcers of jiis- 
tii-e, havin:r no loii"-er homes or houses to retire to, aiul their t'riendg 
and protec-tors b«-ing already gf^ne, became objects ot necessary 
charity, as well as of deej) conuniseration. 

As this scene passes beiorc us, wc can hardly forbear asking, 
whether this he a band of malelaetors and felons llyin<r iVom justice.' 
Wliat are their criims, that they hide themselves in darkness? — To 
what |»unishment are they exposed, that to avoid it, men, and wi>- 
men. and children, thus encounter the surf »)f the .North Sea, and 
the terrors of a night storm r What induces tliis armed pursuit, 
and this arrest of I'ugitives, of all ages and both sexes .^ — Truth does 
not allow us to answer these impiiries, in a manner that does <r<'<lit 
to the wisdom or the justice of the times. This was n<>t the flight 
of guilt, but of virtue. It was an humble and peaceable relijrion, 
(Ivinc from causeless oppression. Il was <'<>uscience, allemptiui: l"» 
• scape frou> the arbitrary rule of the Stuarts. It was Kobiiison, 
and Brewster, leading olf their little band from their luitive soil, at 
first li> tin<l shelter on the shores nf* the neiulilHiurinij cnuliiient, but 
ultimately to come hitbflr; and having surmounted all ditliculties, 
and braved a thousand dangers, to tintl here a place of refuiru and 
of rest. Thanks be lo (iod, that this spot was honored as the asv- 
Imn of religious liberty. May its standard, reare«l here, remiim 
forever! — .Mav it ri»e u|) as hijjh as heaven, till its banner shall fan 
the nir of both continents, and wave as a glorious ensign of peace 
and s«*curitv to the nations! 

The )>eculiar character, condition, and <ircumstanccs of the col- 
onies which introduced rivilisation an<l an Knglish race into .New 
Kn<;land, afford a most interestinix and e\t<'nsive topic of discis- 
sion. On tlu'se much of' our subsetpieut chara«(er and fortune lia.s 
d«-pcndeil. Their influence has es.Hcutially ufl'ecled our whole his- 



32 

tory, through the two centuries M'hich have elapsed; and as they 
have become intimately connected with government, laws, and pro- 
pertv, as well as with our opinions on the subjects of religion and 
civil lil)eity, that inliuence is likely to continue to be felt through 
the centuries which shall succeed. Emigration from one region to 
another, and the eniissi'^i of colonies to people countries more or 
less distant from the residence of the parent stock, are common in- 
cidents in the history of mankind; but it has not often, perhaps 
never happened, that the establishment of colonies should be at- 
tempted, under circumstances, however beset with present ditiicul- 
ties and dangers, yet so favorable to ultimate success, and so 
conducive to magnilicent results, as those which attended the first 
settlements on this part of the continent. In other instances, emi- 
gration has proceeded from a less exalted purpose, in a period of 
less general intelligence, or more without plan and by accident; or 
under circumstances, physical and moral, less favorable to the ex- 
pectation of laying a foundation for great public prosperity and 
future empire. 

A great resemblance exists, obviously, between all the English 
colonies, established within the present limits of the United States; 
but the occasion attracts our attention more immediately to those 
which took possession of New England, and the^ peculiarities of 
these furnish a strong contrast with most other instances of coloni- 
zation. 

Among the ancient nations, the Greeks, no doubt, sent forth from 
their territories the greatest number of colonies. So numerous in- 
deed were they, and so great the extent of space over which they 
were spread, that the parent country fondly and naturally persuaded 
herself, that by means of them she had laid a sure foundation for 
the universal civilisation of the world. These establishments, from 
obvious causes, were most numerous in places most contiguous; 
yet they were found on the coasts of France, on the shores of the 
Euxine Sea, in Africa, and even, as is alleged, on the borders of India. 
Tliese emigrations appear to have been sometimes voluntary and 
sometimes compulsory; arising from the spontaneous enterprise of in- 
dividuals, or the order and regulation of governmezit. It w'as a com- 
mon opinion with ancient writers, that they were undertaken in reli- 
gious obedience to the commands of oracles; and it is probable that 
impressions of this sort might have had more or less intiuence; but it 
is probable, also, that on these occasions the oracles did not speak 
a language dissonant from the views and purposes of the state. 

Political science among the Greeks seems never to h^ve extended 
to the comprehension of a svstem, which should be adequate to the 
government of a great nation upon principles of liberty. They 
were accustomed only to the contemplation of small republics, and 
were led to consider an augmented population as incompatible with 
free institutions. The desire of a remedy for this supposed evil, and 
the wish to establish marts for trade, led the governments often to 
undertake the establishment of colonies as an affair of state expedi- 
ency. Colonization and commerce, indeed, would naturally become 
objects of interest to an ingenious and enterprising people, inhabit- 
ing a territory closely circumscribed in its limits, and in no small 



.Sf5 

nnrt mountainous and Ptorilc; wliilc tlio islrindsof the afliarciit sms, 
and llic proniontorii's and coasts of flic nc4ijhl)ourin;; '•oiitnu-nts. Uy 
their more proximity, strnnirly solicited the excited spirit of emigra- 
tion. Stich was this pr(»xiiniiy, in many instances, tliaf thf new set- 
tlements appeared ratiicr to be the mere extension of jxtpulat ion over 
ciinti'^uons territory, than the establishment of distant colonies. In 
proportion as they were near to the parent state, they would l)c> undei 
its auih(nify,and"partakc of its fortiines. The colony at Marseilles 
miuht perceive lii^htly, or not at all, the sway of IMiocis; while the 
islands in the Enenn Sea could hardly attain to independence of 
their Athenian oriiri". Many of these estaldishinents took place at 
an early age; and if there were defects in the govermnents of the 
parent states, the colonists did not possess philosophy or experience 
sutliei(Mit-to correct sucli evils in their own institutions, even if they 
had not been, by other causes, deprived of the power. An inune- 
diate necessity, connected with the support of life, was the main and 
direct inducement to these undertakings; and there could hardly ex- 
ist more than the hope of a successt'ul imitation of institutions with 
which thev were already acquainted, and of holding an equality with 
their neighixuirs, in the course of improvement. The laws and <us- 
tnms, i)oth political and municipal, as well as the religious worship 
of the parent city, were transferred to the colony; and the parent 
city herself, with all such of her colonies as were nt>t too far remote 
for fre(pieiit intercourse, and common sentiments, woidd a|)pear like 
a I'amilv oi' cities, more or less dependent, and nn»re or less coimect- 
ed. We know how imperfect this system was, as a system of gen- 
eral polities, and what scope it gave to those mutual dissentions and 
conlluls which proved so latal to (ireece. 

But it is more pertinent to our present purpose to observe, that 
nothinir existed in the character of (Jr<'<-ian emigrations, or in the 
spirit and intelligence of th'e emigrants, likely to give a new and im- 
portant «lirection tti human affairs, or a new impulse to the human 
mind. Their motives were not high eiuui^h, their views were not 
sutliciently large and prospective. They went not forth, like our 
ancestors^ to erect .systems of more perfect civil liberty, or to enjoy 
a hiiiher degree of religious tVeedom. .Vbove all, there was nothing 
in the reli<xion and learnin<r of the a«re, that could either inspire high 
purposes, or givi- the ability to execul*-. them. W batcver restraints 
on civil liberty, or wliatever abuses in religious worship, existed at 
the time of cuir fntbers' emigration, yet, even then, all was lii;ht in 
the lUKial and menial wmbl, in c.>m|)arison with ilstniuiifion in mi>s» 
periods of lh«' ancient slates. The settb-ment of a new cmitineiu, 
ill an age of progressive knowledge and improvement, »oubl not but 
do mor<' than merely enlarge the natural boundaries «. I the lialutablo 
world. It could not but do inuVh more even than exteml comiiM>rco 
and increase wealth among the biiiiian race. >\ e see bow this event 
bus acted, bow it must have acted, and winnb-r only why it did not 
act sooner, in the production of moral ellects, tui the state of human 
knowledge, the general tom- <if° human senlimenfs, and the |)rospecls 
of' human hnppiinss. It ua\i' l<> eivili/.ed man not «tnl\ a new cmi- 
tinent to be inhabited and cullivalod, and new scuh to be e\plor«d; 



54 

but it gave him also a new range for his thoughts, new objects foi 
curi;>sit> , aiul dcw cxcitcnieuts to kaowiedgr awil i!ni)roveint'iit. 

Roman colonization resembled, lar less than thai of the Greeks, 
the original settlements of this country. Powcsr and dominion were 
the oljjects of Rome, even in her colonial establishments. Her whole 
exterior aspect was fvr centuries hostile and terrific. She grasped 
at dominion, from India to Britain, and her measures of colonization 
partook of the character of her general system. Her policy was 
military, because her objects were power, ascendency and subjuga- 
tion. Detachments of emigrants from Rome iixiorporated themselves 
with, and governed, the original inhabitants of conquered countries. 
She sent citizens where she had first sent soldiers; her law followed 
her sword. Her colonies were a sort of military establishment; so 
many advanced posts in the career of her dominion. A governor 
from Rome ruled the new colony with absolute sway, and often with 
unboun(fed rapacity. In Sicily, in Gaul, in Spain, and in Asia, the 
power of Rome prevailed, not nominally only, but really and effect- 
ually. Those who immediately exercised it were Roman; the tone 
and tendency of its administration, Roman. Rome herself continu- 
ed to be the heart and centre of the great system which she had es- 
tablished. Extortion and rapacity, finding a wide and often rich 
field of action in the provinces, looked nevertheless to the banks of 
the Tiber, as the scene in which their illgotten treasures should be 
displayed; or if a spirit of more honest acquisition prevailed, the ob- 
ject, nevertheless, was ultimate enjoyment in Rome itself. If our 
own history, and our own times did not sutiiciently expose the inhe- 
rent and incurable evils of provincial government, we might see them 
portrayed, to our amazement, in the desolated and ruined provinces 
of the Roman empire. We might hear them, in a voice that terri- 
fies us, in those strains of complaint and accusation, which the ad- 
vocates of the provinces poured forth in the Roman Forum. — " Qaus 
res luxunes in fla2;itiisy crudeliias iit siippHcus, aiuriiia in rapinis, su- 
perbia in contumeUisj ejficere pofuissef, eas ouineis sese perfulisse.^^ 

As was to be expected, the Roman Provinces partook of the for- 
tunes as well as of the sentiments and general character of the seat 
of empire. They lived together with her, they flourished with her, 
and fell with her. The branches were lopped away even before the 
vast and venerable trunk itself fell prostrate to the earth. Nothing 
had proceeded from her, which could support itself, and bear up the 
name of its origin, when her own sustaining arm should be enfeebled 
or withdrawn. It was not given to Rome to see, either at her zenith, 
or in her decline, a child of her own, distant indeed, and independent 
of her control, yet speaking her language and inheriting her blood, 
s[»ringing forward to a competition with her own power, and a com- 
parison with her own great renown. • She saw not a vast region of 
the earth, peopled from her stock, full of states and political connnu- 
nities, improving upon the models of her institutions, and breathing 
in fuller measure the spirit which she had breathed in the best periods 
of her existence; enjoying and extending her arts and her literature; 
rising rapidly from political childhood to manly strength and independ- 
ence; her offspring, yet now her equal;, unconnected witli the causes 
which might allect the duration of her own power and greatness; of 



.15 

common ori<.Mn. Imt not liiikfil to a common fate; f;i\ injj luiiple pleiipe, 
that tier name siniiild u<>t t)C' liir^> ttcii, tliat Ikt laiii:iia;^*- sliutild not 
cease to Uv nsetl ainintr men; that whatsoever sh<' had done lor hu- 
man knowh-dif*' and hum. in happiness, sliould he tr«-asnred u|) and 
|)r«served; that the record of lier existence, and her achievements, 
shouhl not he ohsenred, ahhou^li, in tlie inscrutahle purposes of 
Providence, it mi<rht he lier destiny to lull from opulence and sphMi- 
dor; ahliouirh tlie time mij^ht come, Mhcn darkness shoidd settle on 
all her hills; when lorei<in or domestic violence should overturn lu-r 
altars and her temples; when ignorance and despotism should till 
the places where Laws, and Arts, and Lihertv had llourislu-d; wlnn 
tlie leet ot' harharisnj should trampleT)n the tombs ol her co isids, 
and the walls of" her senate house and forum echo only to the voice 
of' savage triiuniiji. She saw not this glorious vision, to insjiire and 
fortify her ajjauist the possible decay or downfall of" her power. 
Happy are they, who in our day may behold it, if" they shall contem- 
plate it with the sentiments which it ou<rht to inspire ! 

The r\ew Enijland <'olonies diller «{uite as widely from the Asi- 
atic estublishinents of the modern European nations, as from the 
mod«'ls ot" the Ancient States. The sole object of* those esfal>lish- 
nn'nts was originally trade; although we have seen, in one of* them, 
the anomaly ot' a mere trading compatiy attaining a p >liti<-al charac- 
ter, disbursing revenues, and maintaining armies and fortresses, un- 
til it has extended its control over seventv nuliions ot* people. Dil*- 
I'cring Irom the<e, and still (fttfr-mig moj-e from tlie .>eN\ England 
and North American Colonies, are the fitiropean .cettlements m the 
\\'e<t India Islands. It is not straiiyc, that when men's minds were 
turned to the settlement of" America, ditrerent oiijects should be pro- 
posed by those who emigrated to the different regions of' so vast a 
Ci»untry. Climate, soil, -.uxA condition were not idl eipially favorable 
to all pursuits. In the West Indies, the purpose of thosi' wh> went 
thither, was to engage in that .species ot* agriculture, suited to the 
s«iil and climate, wlii<-h seems to bear more resemblance to com- 
merce, than to the hard and plain tillage of \ew Knirland. The 
great .staples of th<se countries, being partly an agri> nliural and 
nartly a manul'aetured product, and not lieing of the necessaries of 
life, i>erotne the object of caliMibifim. with respect to a proHfaI>le 
investment of capital, like auv «>lher enterprise of trade or maniilac- 
ture. The more especially, a« they require, hv neccssilv or habit, 
slave labor for their production, ilie eapifal neressarv to rarr\ on 
the Work oj thc^ production i- more con«idcral)le. The West liidi»'s 
are resorted to, therefore, rather for the investment of capital ihau 
lor the purp«»se of siistainini; lif'" l)v personal labor. Su<'h as pos- 
.sess a conniderai'le luiioiint of capital, or such as clnuise to adven- 
ture 111 cr.inmereial speculations without capital, can alone be titled 
to be emigrants to the islands. The agriculture of these regions, u> 
before observed, is a sort of' comnier<-e; and it id a species of em- 
ployment, in which laiior seem> to furin an ineonsideraMe ini^redient 
in the productive ciinses; since the portion of white labor is cxceed- 
inuly small, and slave labor i.-i rather m<»re like profit on stock or 
ca|)ilal, than /"'»..»• properly so called. Th«' individual who cuntein- 
plates an establisluneiil ol this kind, fake- into the account the cost 



36 



of the necessary number of slaves, in the same manner as he cal- 
culates the cost of the land. The uncertainty, too, of this species of 
employment, affords another ground of resemblance to commerce. 
Although gainful, on the whole, and in a series of years, it is often 
very disastrous for a single year, and as the capital is not readily 
invested in other pursuits, bad crops, or bad markets, not only atiect 
the profits, but the capital itself Hence the sudden depressions 
which take place in the value of such estates. 

But the great and leading observation, relative to these establish- 
ments, remains to be made. It is, that the owners of the soil and 
of the capital seldom consider themselves' at home in the colony. A 
very great portion of the soil itself is usually owned in the mother 
country; a still greater is mortgaged for capital obtained there; and, 
in general, those who are to derive an interest from the products, 
look to the parent country as the place for enjoyment of their wealth. 
The population is therefore constantly fluctuating. Nobody comes 
but to return. A constant succession of owners, agents, and factors 
takes place. Whatsoever the soil, forced by the unmitigated toil 
of slavery, can yield, is borne home to defray rents, and interest, 
and agencies; or to give the means of living in a better society. In 
such a state, it is evident that no spirit of permanent improvement 
IS likely to spring up. Profits will not be invested with a distant 
view of benefiting posterity. Roads and canals will hardly be built: 
chools will not be founded; colleges will not be endowed. There 
A'ill be tew fixtures in society; no principles of utility or of elegance, 
planted now, with the hope of being developed and expanded here- 
after. Profit, immediate profit, must be the principal active spring 
in the social system. There may be many particular exceptions to 
these general remarks, but the outline of the whole, is such as is 
here drawn. 

Another most important consequence of such a state of things is, 
that no idea of indiipendence of the parent country is likely to arise; 
unless indeed it should spring up in a form, that would threaten imi- 
versal desolation. The inhabitants have no strong attachment to 
the place which they inhabit. The hope of a great portion of them, 
is to leave it; and their great desire, to leave it soon. However 
useful they may be to the parent state, how much soever they may 
add to the conveniencies and luxuries of life, these colonies are not 
favored spots for the expansion of the human mind, for the progress 
of permanent improvement, or for sowing the seeds of future inde- 
pendent empire. 

DiiTerent, indeed, most widely dillerent, from all these instances 
of emigration and plantation, were the condition, the purposes, and 
the prospects of our Fathers, wlien they established their infant 
(;olony upon this spot. They came hither to a land from which they 
were never to return. Hither they had brought, and here they 
were to fix, their hopes, their attachments, and their objects. Some 
natural tears they shed, as they left the pleasant abodes of their 
fathers, and some emotions they suppressed, when the white clifts of 
their native country, now seen for the last time, grew dim to their 
sight. They were acting however upon a resolution not to be chang- 
ed. With whatever stified regrets, with whatever occasional hesita- 



31 

linn, witli wliatcviT iippallini: ;i|)|)H"li(nsi()ns, w hiclj iiii^lit sninotiincs 
arise with lorco to .4tnkr tin- liriiicst purpose, they had yet conmiitted <^<'' 
Ih.iiiselves to Heaviu, aiul the rUiiients; and a thousand h !i;.'ii( s of 
water soon interposed to separate thi-ni forever from the region wliieli 
^ave llieni hirth. A new existence awaited them here; and wlien 
they saw these shor«'S, rt)Ugh, cuhl, barbarous, and barren as then 
tliey were, they belu Id their country. That mixed and stron;,' ficl- 
inn', wliich we call h-ve <d' country, and wiiicii is, in general, n»'vcr 
extinguished in the heart of nmn, grasped and embraced its proper 
object lure. NVhativer constitutes ron/i/ri/, except the eartli and the 
sun, ail the moral causes of alfecfion and attachment, which operate 
upon the heart, they had brought with them to their new abode. 
Here were now their families and friends; their homes, an<l th» ir 
property. IJcfure they reached the shore, they had established the 
elenuMjts of a social system, and at a much earlier period liad set- 
tled their- I'orms of religious worship. \t the moment of their l.iud- 
injr, theretbre, they possessed institutions of governmiMit, and insti- 
tutions of religion: and friends and families, and social and religious 
institutions, established by consent, timnded on choice and prifer- 
ence, how nearly do these till up our wh<de idea of country! — The 
morning that luiimed on the first night of their repose, saw the Pil- 
grims already eii*MbTI Jtti tl in their country. There were political 
institutions, and cuil lil)erty, and religious worship. Poetry has 
fanciid nothin", in the wanderings of heroes, so di.stinct and charac- 
teristic. Here was man, indeed, unprotected, and unprovided 
for, on the shore of a rude and learlul wilderness; but it was politic, 
intelligent and educated man. Everything was civili/.( d but the 
physical world. Institiilions containing in substance all that ages 
liad ilone fir human government, were established in a forest. Cul- 
tivated mind was to act «in uncultivated nature; and, more than all, 
a aovermnent, and a coimtry, were to connnencc, with the very tirst 
foimdalions laiil under the divine light of the christian n liirion. 
Ilappv aus(.ic»s of a happy liiturity ! Who woulil w ish that his eoun- 
tr>'s existence hail oilniwise begim.' — Who would desire the power 
ol" going back to the ages of fable? Who woidd wish for an migin, 
obscured in the darkness of anti(iuityr — Who would wish for other 
cnibla/.oning of his coimtry \s InruMiy, or other ornament.-* of her 
genealojjy, than to be able to saiy, that her tirst existence was with 
int. Ilinence; her lirst brt ath the inspirations of lii)erty; her tirst 
prmciple llie truth of di\iue n-liginn? 

I.<>«:al attac.hnienis and s\ mpalhies would err long s|)ring up in 
tin- bn asts ol' nui ann slurs, endearing to them the place of llu-ir 
reliiue. \N batevir natural obici Is are associated with interestini; 
scenes and high cllbrts, obtain a hold on hunum leeling, nn«i ilemand 
frouj the heart a sort of re<'oi;nilion and regard. This Hock soon 
became hallowed in the esteem ol' the Pilgrims, and these bills grate- 
ful to thc-ir sight. Neither they nor their children were again tn till 
the Foil of I'nyland, nor ayain to traverse tin- seas wbi<-h surnuind- 
ed her. BiU here was a m-w sea, now open to their enl«'rprise, ami 
a new soil, which hail not laih'd to respond gratefully to their lal»ori- 
ous iiiiiu>lrv. and whi« h was alr<ailv as.suuiiny a robe of verdure. 
Ilartllv had they providod shelter f-.r ili. lu ini:, <re llo-v »vere sum- 



I' 



38 

moned to erect sepulchres for the dead. The ground had become 
sacred, by enclosing the remains of some of their companions and 
connexions. A parent, a child, a husband or a wife, had gone the 
way of all flesh, and mingled with the dust of New England. We 
naturally look with strong emotions to the spot, though it be a wil- 
derness, where the ashes of those we have loved repose. Where 
the heart has laid down what it loved most, it is desirous of laying 
itself dov.'n. No sculptured marble, no enduring monument, no 
honorable inscription, no ever burning taper that would drive away 
the darkness of death, can soften our sense of the reality of mortal- 
ity, and hallow to our feelings the ground which is to cover us, like 
the consciousness that we shall sleep, dust to dust, with the objects 
of our afiections. 

In a short time other causes sprung up to bind the Pilgrims with 
new cords to their chosen land. Children were born,, and the hopes 
of future generations arose, in the spot of their new habitation. 
The second generation found this the land of their nativity, and saw 
that they were bound to its fortunes. They beheld their fathers' 
graves around them, and while they read the memorials of their 
toils and labors, they rejoiced in the inheritance which they found 
bequeathed to them. 

Under the influence of these causes, it was to be expected, that 
an interest and a feeling should arise here, entirely different from 
the interest and feeling of mere Englishmen; and all the subsequent 
history of the colonies proves this to have actually and gradually 
taken place. With a general acknowledgement of the supremacy of 
the British crown, there was, from the first, a repugnance to an en- 
tire submission to the control of British legislation. The colonies 
stood upon their charters, which as they contended, exempted them 
from the ordinary power of the British j)arliament, and authorised 
them to conduct their own concerns by their own counsels. They 
utterly resisted the notion that they were to be ruled by the mere 
authority of the government at home, and would not endure even 
that their own charter governments should be established on the 
other side of the Atlantic. It v.as not a controlling or protecting 
hoard in England, but a government of their own, and existing im- 
mediately within their limits, which could satisfy their wishes. It 
was easy to foresee, what w(i know also to have happened, that the 
first great cause of collision and jealousy would be, under the notion 
of political economy then and still prevalent in Europe, an attempt 
on the part of the mother country to monopolize the trade of the col- 
onies. Whoever has looked deeply into the causes which produced 
our revolution, has lound, if I mistake not, the original principle tar 
back in this claim, on the part of England, to monopolize our trade, 
and a continued etf >rt on the part of the colonies to resist or evade 
that monopoly; if indeed it be not still more just and philosophical 
to go farther back, and to consider it decided, that an independent 
government must arise here, the moment it was ascertained that an 
English colon) , such as landed in this place, could sustain itself 
against the dangers which surrounded it, and, with other .similar es- 
tablishments, overspread the land with an English population. Ac- 
cidental causes retarded at times, and at times accelerated tin 



59 

prrjjress of the contro\ j'rsy. Tht^ colonies wanted strength, and 
time "cive it to them. They required measures of strong and pal- 
pahle injustice, on the part of the mother country, to justity resis- 
tance; the early part of the late king's reign furnished them. They 
needed spirits of high order, of great daring, of long foresight and 
of commanding power, to seize the favoring occasion to strike a 
blow, vvhich should sever, tiyiiite*-, the tie of colonial dependence; 
and these spirits were found, in all the extent which that or any cri- 
sis could demand, in Otis, Adams, Hancock, and the other immedi- 
ate authors of our independence. Still it is true, that for a century, 
causes had been in operation tending to prepare things for this great 
result. In the year 1660 the English act of Navigation was pass- 
ed; the first and grand object of which seems to have been to secure 
to England the whole trade with her plantations. It was provided, 
bv that act, that none but English ships should transport American 
produce over the ocean; and that the principal articles of that pro- 
duce should be allowed to be sold only in the markets of the mother 
country. Three years afterwards another law was passed, which 
enacted, that such commodities as the colonies might wish to pur- 
chase, should be bpught only in the markets of the mother country. 
Severe rules were prescribed to enforce the provisions of these laws, 
and heavy penalties imposed on all who should violate them. In 
the subsequent years of the same reign, other statutes were passed 
to reentbrce these statutes, and other rules prescribed, to secure a 
compliance with these rules. In this manner was the trade, to and 
from the colonies, tied up, almost to the exclusive advantage of the 
parent country. But laws, which rendered the interest of a whole 
people subordinate to that of another people, were not likely to ex- 
ecute themselves; nor was it easy to find many on the spot, who 
could be depended upon for carrying them into execution. In fact, 
these laws were more or less evaded, or resisted, in all the colonies. 
To enforce them was the constant endeavour of the government at 
home; to prevent or elude their operation, the perpetual object here. 
" The laws of navigation," says a living British writer, " were no- 
where so openly disobeyed and contemned as in New England." 
" The people of Massachusetts Bay," he adds, " were from the first 
disposed to act as if independent of the mother country, and having 
a governor and magistrates of their own choice, it was diflicult to 
enforce any regulation which came from the English parliament, 
adverse to their interests." To provide more effectually for the ex- 
ecution of these laws, we know that courts of admiralty were af- 
terwards established by the crown, with power to try revenue 
causes, as questions of admiralty, upon the construction given by 
the crown lawyers, to an act of parliament; — a great departure from 
the ordinary principles of English jurisprudence, but which has 
been maintained, nevertheless, by the force of habit and precedent, 
and is adopted in our own existing systems of government. 

" There lie," says another English writer, whose connexion with 
the Board of Trade has enabled him to ascertain many facts con- 
nected with colonial history, — " There lie among the documents in 
the board of trade and paper office, the most satisfactory proofs, 
from the epoch of the English revolution in 1688, throughout every 



40 

reign, and during every administration, of the settled purpose of the 
colonies to acquire direct independence and positive sovereignty." 
Perhaps this may be stated somewhat too strongly; but it cannot be 
denied, that from the very nature of the establishments here, and 
from the general character of the measures respecting their con- 
cerns, early adopted, and steadily pursued by the English govern- 
ment, a division of the empire was the natural and necessary result 
to which everything tended. 

I have dwelt on this topic, because it seems to me, that the pe- 
culiar original character of the New England colonics, and certain 
causes coeval with their existence, have had a strong and decided 
influence on all their subsequent history, and especially on the great 
event of the Revolution. Whoever would write our history, and 
would understand and explain early transactions, should comprehend 
the nature and force of the feeling which I have endeavoured to 
describe. As a son, leaving the house of his father for his OAvn, 
finds, by the order of nature, and the very law of his being, nearer 
and dearer objects around which his affections circle, while his at- 
tachment to the parental roof becomes moderated, by degrees, to a 
composed regard, and an affectionate remembrance; so our ances- 
tors, leaving their native land, not without some violence to the feel- 
ings of nature and affection, yet, in time, found here a new circle of 
engagements, interests, and affections; a feeling, which more and 
more encroached upon the old, till an undivided sentiment, that 
this ivas their country, occupied the heart; and patriotism, shutting 
out from its embraces the parent realm, became local to America. 

Some retrospect of the century which has now elapsed, is among 
the duties of the occasion. It must, however, necessarily be im- 
perfect, to be compressed within the limits of a single discourse. 
I shall content myself, therefore, with taking notice of a ^ew of the 
leading, and most important occurrences, which have distinguished 
the period. 

When the first century closed, the progress of the country ap- 
peared to have been considerable; notwithstanding that, in compari- 
son with its subsequent advancement, it now seems otherwise. A 
broad and lasting foundation had been laid: excellent institutions 
had been established ; nwteh of the prejudices of former times had 
U»««*«e removed; a more liberal and catholic spirit on subjects of 
religious concern had begun to extend itself, and many things con- 
si)ired to give promise of increasing future prosperity. Great men 
had arisen in public life, and the liberal professions. The Mathers, 
father and son, were then sinking low in the western horizon; Lev- 
erett, the learned, the accomplished, the excellent Leverett, was 
about to withdraw his brilliant and useful light. In Pemberton, 
great hopes had been suddenly extinguished, but Prince and Col- 
man, were in our sky; and the crepuscular light had begun to flash 
along the East, of a great luminary which was about to appear; 
and which was to mark the age with his own name, as the age of 
Franklin. 

The bloody Indian wars, which harassed the people for a part of 
the first century; the restrictions on the trade of the colonies — ad- 
ded to the discouragements inherently belonging to all forms of 



41 

colonial government; the distance from Europe, and the small hope 
of immediate profit to adventurers, are among the causes which had 
contributed to retard the progress of population. Perhaps it may- 
be added, also, that during the period of the civil wars in England, 
and the reign of Cromwell, many persons, whose religious opinions 
and religious temper might, under other circumstances, have induced 
them to join the New England colonists, found reasons to remain in 
England; either on account of active occupation in the scenes which 
were passing, or of an anticipation of the enjoyment, in their own 
country, of a form of government, civil and religious, accommodated 
to their views and principles. The violent measures, too, pursued 
against the colonies in the reign of Charles the second, the mockery 
of a trial, and the forfeiture of the charters, were serious evils. 
And during the open violences of the short reign of James the sec- 
ond, and the tyranny of Andros, as the venerable historian of Con- 
necticut observes, " Ml the motives to great actions, to industry, 
economy, enterprise, wealth, and popidation, were in a manner annihila- 
ted. Ji general inactivity and langnishment pervaded the public body 
Liberty, property, and everything ivhich ought to be dear to men, every 
day grew more and more insecure^ 

With the revolution in England, a better prospect had opened on 
this country, as well as on that. The joy had been as great, at that 
event, and far more universal in New than in Old England. A new 
charter had been granted to Massachusetts, which, although it did 
not confirm to her inhabitants all their former privileges, yet reliev- 
ed them from great evils and embarrassments, and promised future 
security. More than all, perhaps, the revolution in England, had 
done good to the general cause of liberty and justice. A blow had 
been struck in favor of the rights and liberties, not of England 
alone, but of descendants and kinsmen of England, all over the 
world. Great political truths had been established. The champi- 
ons of liberty had been successful in a fearful and perilous conflict. 
Somers, and Cavendish, and Jekyl, and Howard, had triumphed in 
one of the most noble causes ever undertaken by men. A revolu- 
tion had been made upon principle. A monarch had been dethron- 
ed, for violating the original compact between King and People. 
The rights of the people to partake in the government, and to limit 
the monarch by fundamental rules of government, had been main- 
tained; and however unjust the government of England might after- 
wards be, towards other governments or towards her colonies, she 
had ceased to be governed herself by the arbitrary maxims of the 
Stuarts. 

New England had submitted to the violence of James the second, 
not longer than Old England. Not only was it reserved to Massachu- 
setts, that on her soil should be acted the first scene of that great 
revolutionary Drama, which was to take place near a century after- 
wards, but the English revolution itself, as far as the colonies were 
concerned, commenced in Boston. A direct and forcible resistance 
to the authority of James the second, was the seizure and imprison- 
ment of Andros, in April 1689. The pulse of Liberty beat as high 
in the extremities as at the heart. The vigorous feeling of the 
Colony burst out, before it was known how the parent country 



42 

would finally conduct itsetf. The king's representative, Sir Ed- 
mund Andros, was a prisoner in the castle at Boston, before it was 
or could be known, that the king himself had ceased to exercise 
his full dominion on the English throne. 

Before it was known here, whether the invasion of the Prince of 
Orange would or could prove successful; as soon only as it was known 
that it had been undertaken, the people of Massachusetts, at the 
inuninent hazard of their lives and fortunes, had accomplished the 
revolution as far as respected themselves. It is probable, that, 
reasoning on general principles, and the known attachment of the 
English people to their constitution and liberties, and their deep 
and fixed dislike of the king's religion and politics, the people of 
New England expected a catastrophe fatal to the power of the reign- 
ing Prince. Yet, it was not either certain enough, or near enough, 
to come to their aid against the authority of the crown, in that crisis 
which had arrived, and in which they trusted to put themselves, re- 
lying on God, and their own courage. There were spirits in Mas- 
sachusetts, congenial with the spirits of the distinguished friends of 
the revolution in England. There were those, who were fit to asso- 
ciate with the boldest asserters of civil liberty ; and Mather himself, 
then in England, was not unworthy to be ranked with those sons of 
the church, whose firmness and spirit in resisting kingly encroach- 
ment in religion, entitled them to the gratitude of their own and 
succeeding ages. 

The second century opened upon New England under circum- 
stances which evinced that much had already been accomplished, 
and that still better prospects, and brighter hopes, were before her. 
She had laid, deep and strong, the foundations of her society. Her 
religious principles were firm, and her moral habits exemplary. 
Her public schools had begun to difluse widely the elements of 
knowledge; and the College, under the excellent and acceptable 
administration of Leverett, had been raised to a high degree of 
credit and usefulness. 

The commercial character of the country, notwithstanding all 
discouragements, had begun to display itself, and Jive hundred ves- 
sels, then belonging to Massachusetts, placed her in relation to com- 
merce, thus early, at the head of the colonies. An author who 
wrote very near the close of the first century says; " New England 
is almost deserving that noble name, so mightily hath it increased; 
and from a small settlement, at first, is now become a very populous 
and flourishing government. The capital city, Boston, is a place of 
o/Yoi wealth and trade; and by much the largest of any in the Eng- 
lish empire of America; and not exceeded but by few cities, perhaps 
two or tliree, in all the American world." 

But, if our ancestors at the close of the first century, could look 
back with joy, and even admiration at the progress of the country; 
what emotions must we not feel, when, from the point in which we 
stand, we also look back and run along the events of the century 
which has now close(^ The country, which then, as we have 
seen, was thought deserving of a "noble name;" which then had 
"mightily increased," and become "very populous;" what was it, 
in comparison with what our eyes behold it? A-' t!i;>t pf^riod. si v( rv 



43 

great proportion of its inhabitants lived in the eastern section ot 
Massaclmsetts proper, and in this colony. In Connecticut, there 
were towns along the coast, some of them respectable, but in the 
interior, all was a wilderness beyond Hartford. On Connecticut 
river, settlements had proceeded as far up as Deerfield, and Fort 
Dummer had been built, near where is now the south line of New 
Hampshire. In New Hampshire, no settlement was then begun 
thirty miles from the mouth of Piscataqua river, and, in what is now 
Maine, the inhabitants were confined to the coast. The aggregate 
of the whole population of New England did not exceed one hun- 
dred and sixty thousand. Its present amount is probably one million 
seven hundred thousand. Instead of being confined to its former 
limits, her population has rolled backward and filled up the spaces 
included within her actual local boundaries. Not this only, but it 
has overflowed those boundaries, and the waves of emigration have 
pressed, farther and farther toward the west. The Alleghany has 
not checked it; the banks of the Ohio have been covered with it. 
New England farms, houses, villages, and churches spread over, 
and adorn the immense extent from the Ohio to Lake Erie; and 
stretch along, from the Alleghany onwards, beyond the Miamis, and 
toward the Falls of St. Anthony. Two thousand miles westward 
from the rock where their fathers landed, may now be found the 
sons of the Pilgrims; cultivating smiling fields, rearing towns and 
villages, and cherishing, we trust, the patrimonial blessings of wise 
institutions, of liberty, and religion. The world has seen nothing 
like this. Regions large enough to be empires, and which, half a 
century ago, were known only as remote and unexplored wilder- 
nesses, are now teemmg with population, and prosperous in all the 
great concerns of life; in good governments, the means of subsis- 
tence, and social happiness. It may be safely asserted, that there 
arc now more than a million of people, descendants of New Eng- 
land ancestry, living free and happy, in regions, which hardly sixty 
3^ears ago were tracts of unpenetrated forest. Nor do rivers, or 
mountains, or seas resist the progress of industry and enterprise. 
Ere long, the sons of the Pilgrims will be on the shores of the 
Pacific. The imagination hardly keeps up with the progress of 
population, improvement, and civilisation. 

It is now five and forty years, since the growth and rising glory 
of America were portrayed in tlie English parliament, with inimita- 
ble beauty, by the most consummate orator of modern times. GJoing 
back somewhat more than half a century, and describing our progress 
as foreseen, from that point, by his amiable friend Lord Bathurst, 
then living, he spoke of the wondcrtul progress which xVmerica had 
made during the period of a single human life. There is no Amer- 
ican heart, I imagine, that does not glow, both with conscious patri- 
otic pride, and admiration for one of the happiest efibrts of eloquence, 
so often as the vision, of " that little speck, scarce visible in the mass 
of national interest, a small seminal principle, rather than a formed 
body," and the progress of its astonishing developement and grov/th, 
are recalled to the recollection. But a stronger leeling might be 
produced, if we were able to take up this prophetic description where 
]\n l:'('f it; rmf1 Vil:u'ii':'j fdirS''!'-'' : :it i\\c j»nirii <i!* fiDip ii wlii.-h he 



44 

was speaking, to set forth with equal feUcity the subsequent progress 
of the country. There is yet among the Uving a most distinguished 
and venerable name, a descendant of the Pilgrims; one who has 
been attended through life by a great and fortunate genius; a man 
illustrious by his own great merits, and tavored of Heaven in the 
long continuation of his years. The time when the English orator 
was thus speaking of America, preceded, but by a few days, the ac- 
tual opening of the revolutionary drama at Lexington. He to whom 
I have alluded, then at the age of forty, was among the most zeal- 
ous and able defenders of the violated rights of his country. He 
seemed already to have filled a full measure of public service, and 
attained an honorable fame. The moment was full of difKculty and 
danger, and big with events of immeasurable importance. The 
country was on the very brink of a civil war, of which no man could 
foretell the duration or the result. Something more than a coura- 
geous hope, or characteristic ardor, would have been necessary to 
impress the glorious prospect on his belief, if, at that moment, before 
the sound of the first shock of actual war had reached his ears, 
some attendant spirit had opened to him the vision of the future; if 
it had said to him, " The blow is struck, and America is severed from 
England forever !" if it had informed him, that he himself, the next 
ann'ual revolution of the sun, should put his own hand to the great 
instrument of Independence, and write his name where all nations 
should behold it, and all time should not efface it; that ere long he 
himself should maintain the interest and represent the sovereignty 
of his new-born country, in the proudest courts of Europe; that he 
should one day exercise her supreme magistracy; that he should yet 
live to beholdten millions of fellow citizens paying him the homage 
of their deepest gratitude and kindest affections; that he should see 
distinguished tale^nt and high public trust resting where his name rest- 
ed; that he should even see with his own unclouded eyes, the close 
of the second century of New England, who had begun life almost 
with its commencement, and lived through nearly half the whole his- 
tory of his country; and that on the morning of this auspicious day, 
he should be found in the political councils of his native state, revis- 
ing, by the light of experience, that system of government, which 
forty years before he had assisted to frame and establish; and great 
and" happy as he should then behold his country, there should be 
nothing, in prospect to cloud the scene, nothing to check the ardor 
of that^confident and patriotic hope, which should glow in his bosom 
to the end of his long protracted and happy lite. 

It would far exceed the limits of this discourse, even to mention 
the principal events in the civil and political history of New England 
during the century; the more so, as for the last half of the period, 
that history has been, most happily, closely interwoven with the gen- 
eral history of the United States. New England bore an honorable 
part in the wars which took place between England and France. 
The capture of Lnuisburg gave her a character for military achieve- 
ment; and in the war which terminated with the peace of 1763, her 
exertions on the frontiers were of most essential service as well to 
the mother country as to all the colonies. 



45 

In New England the war of the revolution commenced. I ad- 
dre^s those who remember the memorable 19th of April 1775; who 
shortly after saw the burning spires of Charlestown; who beheld the 
deeds of Prescott, and heard the voice of Putnam, amidst the storm 
of war, and saw the generous Warren fall, the first distinguished 
victim in the cause of liberty. It would be superfluous to say, that 
no portion of the country did more than the states of New England, 
to bring the rfevolutionary struggle to a successful issue. It is scarce- 
ly less to her credit, that she saw early the necessity of a closer 
union of the states, and gave an efficient and indispensable aid to 
the establishment and organization of the federal government. 

Perhaps we might safely say, that a new spirit, and a new excite- 
ment began to exist here, about the middle of the last century. To 
whatever causes it may be imputed, there seems then to have com- 
menced a more rapid improvement. The colonies had attracted 
more of the attention of the mother country, and some renown in 
arms had been acquired. Lord Chatham was the first English min- 
ister who attached high importance to these possessions of the crown, 
and who foresaw anything of their future gro\vth and extension. His 
opinion was, that the great rival of England was chiefly to be feared 
as a maritime and commercial power, and to drive her out of North 
America, and deprive her of her West India possessions was a lead- 
ing object in his policy. He dwelt often on the fisheries, as nurse- 
ries for British seamen, and the colonial trade, as furnishing them 
employment. The war, conducted by him with so much vigor, ter- 
minated in a peace, by which Canada was ceded to England. The 
effect of this was immediately visible in the New England colonies; 
for the fear of Indian hostilities on the frontiers being now happily 
removed, settlements went on with an activity before that time alto- 
gether unprecedented, and public affairs wore a new and encouraging 
aspect. Shortly afler this fortunate termination of the French war, 
the interesting topics connected with the taxation of America by 
the British Parliament began to be discussed, and the attention and 
all the faculties of the people drawn towards them. There is per- 
haps no portion of our history more full of interest than the period 
from 1760 to the actual commencement of the war. The progress 
of opinion, in this period, though less known, is not less important, 
than the progress of arms afterwards. Nothing deserves more 
consideration than those events and discussions which affected the 
public sentiment, and settled the revolution in men's minds, before 
hostilities openly broke out. 

Internal improvement followed the establishment, and prosperous 
commencement, of the present government. More has been done 
for roads, canals, and other public works, within the last thirty years, 
than in all our former history. In the first of these particulars, few 
countries excel'the New England States. The astonishing increase 
of their navigation and trade is known to every one, and now belongs 
to the history of our national wealth. 

We may flatter ourselves, too, that literature and taste have not 
been stationary, and that some advancement has been made in the 
elegantj as well as in the useful arts. 



46 

The nature and constitution of society and government, in this 
country, are interesting topics, to which I would devote what remains 
of the time allowed to this occasion. Of our system of government, 
the first thing to be said, is, that it is really and practically a free 
system. It originates entirely with the people, and rests on no other 
foundation than their assent. To judge of its actual operation, 
it is not enough to look merely at the form of its construction. I'he 
practical character of government depends otlen on a variety of 
considerations, besides the abstract frame of its constitutional organ- 
ization. Among these, are the condition and tenure of property; 
the laws regulating its alienation and descent; the presence or ab- 
sence of a military power; an armed or unarmed yeomanry; the 
spirit of the age, and the degree of general intelligence. In these 
respects it cannot be deriied, that the circumstances of this country 
are most favorable to the hope of maintaining the government of a 
great nation on principles entirely popular. In the absence of mili- 
tary power, the nature of government must essentially depend on 
the manner in which property is holden and distributed. There is 
a natural influence belonging to property, whether it exists in many 
hands or few; and it is on the rights of property, that both despotism 
and unrestrained popular violence ordinarily commence their attacks. 
Our ancestors began their system of government here, under a con- 
dition of comparative equality, in regard to wealth, and their early 
laws were of a nature to favor and continue this equality.* A re- 
publican form of government rests, not more on political constitu- 
tions, than on those laws which regulate the descent and transmis- 
sion of property. — Governments like ours could not have been 
maintained, where property was holden according to the principles 
of the feudal system; nor, on the other hand, could the feudal con- 
stitution possibly exist with us. Our New England ancestors brought 
hither no great capitals from Europe; and if they had, there was 
nothing productive in which they could have been invested. They 
left behind them the whole feudal policy of the other continent. 
They broke away, at once, from the system of military service, es- 
tablished in the dark ages, and which continues, down even to the 
present time, more or less to aflect the condition of property all over 
Europe. Thev came to a new country. There were, as yet, no 
lands yielding rent, and no tenants rendering service. The whole 
soil was unreclaimed from barbarism. They were themselves, either 
from their original condition, or from the necessity of their common 
interest, nearly on a general level, in respect to property. Their 
situation demanded a parceling out and division of the lands; and 
it may be fairly said, that this necessary act Jixccl the future frame and 
form of their government. The character of their political institutions 
was determined by the fundamental laws respecting property. The 
laws rendered estates divisible among sons and daughters. The 
right of primogeniture, at lirst limited, and curtailed, was afterwards 

* The contents of several of tlie following pa^es will be fovind also in the printed account 
of the proceedings of the Massachusetts convention, in some remarks made liy the autlior a 
leiv days befire the delivery of this discourse. As those remarks were origiir.dly written 
for this discourse, it was thought proper not to omit them, in the publication, uotwitlistand- 
iog tliis cii'cumstance. 



47 

abolished. The property was all freehold. The entailment of es- 
tates, long trusts, and the other processes for fettering and tynig up 
inheritances, were not applicable to the condition of society, and 
seldom made use of On the contrary, alienation of the land wag 
every way facilitated, even to the subjecting of it to every species 
of debt. The establishment of pubUc registries, and the smiplicity 
of our forms of conveyance, have greatly facilitated the change of 
real estate from one proprietor to another. The consequence of 
all these causes has been, a great subdivision of the soil, and a great 
equality of condition; the true basis most certainly of a popular gov- 
ernment.— " If the people," says Harrington, " hold three parts m 
four of the territory, it is plain there can neither be any single per- 
son nor nobility able to dispute the government with them; in this 
case, therefore, ex ce-pt force be interposed, they govern themselves." 
The history of other nations may teach us how favorable to pub- 
lic liberty is the division of tlie soil into small freeholds, and a sys- 
tem of laws, of which the tendency is, without violence or injustice, 
to produce and to preserve a degree of equality of property. It has 
been estimated, if I mistake not, that about the time of Henry the 
VII., four-fifths of the land in England was holden by the great 
barons and ecclesiastics. The effects of a growing commerce soon 
afterwards began to break in on this state of things, and before the 
revolution in 168B, a vast change had been wrought. It may be 
thoueht probable, that, for the last half century, the process of sub- 
division in England, has been retarded, if not reversed; that the 
great weight of taxation has compelled many of the lesser freehold- ^ 
ers to dispose of their estates, and to seek employment in the army 
and navy; in the professions of civil life; in commerce or in the col- 
onies. The effect of this on the British constitution cannot but be 
most unfavorable. A kw large estates grow larger; but the number 
of those who have no estates also increases; and there may be dan- 
ger, lest the inequality of property become so great, that those who 
possess it may be dispossessed by force; in other words, that the 
government may be overturned. 

A most interesting experiment of the effect of a subdivision of 
property on government, is now making in France. It is under- 
stood, that the law regulating the transmission of property, in that 
country, now divides it, real and personal, among all the children, 
equally, both sons and daughters; and that there is, also, a very great 
restraint on the power of making dispositions of property by will. 
It has been supposed, that the effects of this might probably be, in 
time, to break up the soil into such small subdivisions, that the pro- 
prietors would be too poor to resist the encroachments of executive 
power. I think far otherwise. What is lost in individual wealth, 
will be more than gained in numbers, in intelligence, and in a sym- 
pathy of sentiment. If, indeed, only one, or a few landholders were 
to resist the crown, like the barons of England, they must, of course, 
be great and powerful landholders with multitudes of retainers, to 
promise success. But if the proprietors of a given extent of terri- 
tory are summoned to resistance, there is no reason to believe that 
such resistance would be less forcible, or less successful, because 
the number of such proprietors «}TOfuld"_l)e great. Each would per- 



48 

ceive his own importance, and his own interest, and would feel that 
natural elevation of character which the consciousness of propcrty 
inspires. A common sentiment would unite all, and numbers would 
not only add strength, but excite enthusiasm. It is true, that France 
possesses a vast military force, under the direction of an hereditary 
executive government; and military power, it is possible, may over- 
throw any government. It is in vain, however, in this period of the 
world, to look for security against military power, to the arm of the 
great landholders. That notion is derived from a state of things 
long since past; a state in which a feudal baron, with his retainers, 
might stand against the sovereign, who was himself but the greatest 
baron, and his retainers. But at present, what could the richest 
landholder do, against one regiment of disciplined troops.? Other 
securities, therefore, against the prevalence of military power must 
be provided. Happily for us, we are not so situated as that any pur- 
pose of national defence requires, ordinarily and constantly, such a 
military force as might seriously endanger our liberties. 

In respect, however, to the recent law of succession in France, 
to which I have alluded, I would, presumptuously perhaps, hazard 
a conjecture, that if the government do not change the law, the law, 
in half a century, will change the government; and that this change 
will be not in favor of ihe power of the crown, as some European 
writers have supposed, but against it. Those Avriters only reason 
upon what they think correct general principles, in relation to this 
subject. They acknowledge a want of experience. Here we have 
had that experience; and we know that a multitude of small propri- 
etors, acting with intelligence, and that enthusiasm which a common 
cause inspires, constitute not only a formidable, but an invincible 
power. 

The true principle of a free and popular government would seem 
to be, so to construct it, as to give to all, or at least to a very great 
majority, an interest in its preservation: to found it, as other things 
are founded, on men's interest. The stability of government re- 
quires that those who desire its continuance should be more power- 
ful than those who desire its dissolution. This power, of course, 
is not always to be measured by mere numbers. — Education, 
wealth, talents, are all parts and elements of the general aggregate 
of power; but numbers, nevertheless, constitute ordinarily the most 
important consideration, unless indeed there be a military force^ in 
the hands of the few, by which they can control the many. In this 
country we have actually existing systems of government, in the 
maintenance of which, it should seem, a great majority, both in 
numbers and in other means of power and influence, must see then- 
interest. But this state of things is not brought about solely by 
written political constitutions, or the mere manner of organizing 
the government; but also by the laws which regulate the descent 
and transmission of property. The freest government, if it could 
exist, would not be long acceptable, if the tendency of the laws 
were to create a rapid accumulation of property in few hands, and 
to render the great mass of the population dependent and pennyless. 
In such a case, the popular power would be likely to break in ui)oi 
the rights of property, or else the influence of property (o limit am 



49 

control the exercise of popular power. — Universal suffrage, for ex- 
ample, could not long exist in a comjnunity, where there was great 
inequality of property. The holders of estates would be obliged in 
such case, either, in some way, to restrain the right of suffrage; or 
else such right of suffrage would, long before, divide the property. 
In the nature of things, those who have not property, and see their 
neighbours possess much more than they think them to need, can- 
not be favorable to laws made for the protection of property. When 
this class becomes numerous., it grows clamorous. It looks on 
property as its prey and plunder, and is naturally ready, at all times, 
for violence and revolution. 

It would seem, then, to be the part of political wisdom, to found 
government on property; and to establish such distribution of proper- 
ty, by the laws which regulate its transmission and alienation, as to 
interest the great majority of society in the support of the govern- 
ment. This is, I imagine, the true theory and the actual practice 
of our republican institutions. With property divided, as we have 
it, no other government than that of a republic could be maintained, 
even were we foolish enough to desire it. There is reason, there- 
fore, to expect a long continuance of our systems. Party and 
passion, doubtless, may prevail at times, and much temporary mis- 
chief be done. Even modes and forms may be changed, and per- 
haps for the worse. But a great revolution, in regard to property, 
must take place, before our governments can be moved from tlieir 
republican basis, unless they be violently struck off by military 
power. The people possess the property, more emphatically than 
it could ever be said of the people of any other country, and they 
can have no interest to overturn a government which protects that 
property by equal laws. 

Let it not be supposed, that this state of things possesses too 
strong tendencies towards the production of a dead and uninterest- 
ing level in society. Such tendencies are sufficiently counteracted 
by the infinite diversities in the characters and fortunes of individu- 
als. Talent, activity, industry, and enterprise tend at all times to 
produce inequality and distinction; and there is room still for the 
accumulation of wealth, with its great advantages, to all reasonable 
and useful extent. It has been often urged against the state of 
society in America, that it furnishes no class of men of fortune and 
leisure. This may be partly true, but it is not entirely so, and the 
evil, if it be one, would affect rather the progress of taste and litera- 
ture, than the general prosperity of the people. But the promo- 
tion of taste and literature cannot be primary objects of political 
institutions; and if they could, it might be doubted, whether, in the 
long course of things, as much is not gained by a wide diffusion of 
gcaeral knowledge, as is lost by abridging the number of those 
whom fortune and leisure enable to devote themselves exclusively 
to scientific and literary pursuits. However this may be, it is to be 
considered that it is the spirit of our system to be equal, and gene- 
ral, and if there be particular disadvantages incident to this, they 
are far more than counterbalanced by the benefits which weigh 
against them. The important concerns of society are generally 
conducted, in all countries, by the men of business and practical 
7 E 



50 

ability; and even in matters of taste and literature, the advantages 
of mere leisure are liable to be overrated. If there exist adequate 
means of education, and t¥m love of letters be excited, that love 
will find its way to the object of its desire, through the crowd and 
pressure of the most busy society. 

Connected with this division of property, and the- consequent 
participation of the great mass of people in its possession and en- 
joyments, is the system of representation, which is admirably ac- 
commodated to our condition, better understood among us, and more 
familiarly and extensively practised, in the higher and in the lower 
departments of government, than it has been with any other people. 
Great facility has been given to this in New England by the early 
division of the country into townships or small districts, in which all 
concerns of local police are regulated, and in which representatives 
to the legislature are elected. Nothing can exceed the utility of 
these little bodies. They are so many councils, or parliaments, in 
which common interests are discussed, and useful knowledge ac- 
quired and communicated. 

The division of governments into departments, and the division, 
again, of the legislative department into two chambers, are essen- 
tial provisions in our systems. This last, although not new in itself, 
yet seems to be new in its application to governments wholly popu- 
lar. The Grecian republics, it is plain, knew nothing of it; and in 
Rome, the check and balance of legislative power, such as it was, 
lay between the people and the senate. Indeed few things are 
more difficult than to ascertain accurately the true nature and con- 
struction of the Roman commonAvealth. The relative power of the 
senate and the people, the consuls and the tribunes, appears not to 
have been at all times the same, nor at any time accurately defined 
or strictly observed. Cicero, indeed, describes to us an admirnble 
arrangement of political power, and a balance of the constitution, 
in that beautiful passage, in which he compares the democracies of 
Greece with the Roman commonwealth. " O morem preclarum, clis- 
cipUnamque, quuin a majoribus accepinms, si quidem tencremus! sed 
nescin quo poclu jam de manibus eInhiUir. JYtdlam enim illi nostri sapi- 
entissimi et sancfissimi vm rim concionis esse valuer unt, quae scisseret 
plebs, aid quae populus juberet; summo'a condone, disiribidis partibus, 
tribidim, et ccnturudim, descriptis ordinibns, classibns, (Kfatibus, anditis 
aucioribus, re midtos dies promulgafa et coo^nita, jnberi vetarique vohi- 
ernnf. Graecortim aidem totae respiiblicae sedentis concionis temeritate 
admimsirantitr.'''' 

But at what time this wise system existed in this perfection at 
Rome, no pr<)ofs remain to show. Her constitution, originally fram- 
ed for a monarchy, never seemed to be adjusted, in its several 
parts, after the expulsion of the kings. Lil)erty there was, but it 
was a disputatious, an uncertain, an ill-secured iil)erty. The patri- 
cian and plebeian orders, instead of being matched and joined, each 
in its just place and proportion, to sustain the fabric of the state, 
were ratiier like hostile powers, in perpetual contJict. With us, an 
attempt has been made, and so far not without success, to divide 
representation into chambers, and, by difference of age, character. 



51 

qualification or mode of election, to establish salutary checks, in 
governments altogether elective. 

Having detained you so long with these observations, I must yet 
advert to another most interesting topic, the Free Schools. In this 
particular, New England may be allowed to claim, I think, a merit 
of a peculiar character. She early adopted and has constantly 
maintained the principle, that it is the undoubted right, and the 
bounden duty of government, to provide for the instruction of all 
youth. That which is elsewhere left to chance, or to charity, we 
secure by law. For the purpose of public instruction, we hold 
every man subject to taxation in proportion to his property, and we 
look not to the question, whether he himself have, or have not, 
children to be benefited by the edlication for which he pays. We 
regard it as a wise and liberal system of police, by which property, 
and life, and the peace of society are secured. We seek to pre- 
vent, in some measure, the extension of the penal code, by inspiring 
a salutary and conservative principle of virtue and of knowledge in 
an early age. We iwljae to excite a feeling of respectability, and a 
sense of character, by enlarging the capacity, and increasing the 
sphere of intellectual enjoyment. By general instruction, we seek, 
as far as possible, to purify the whole moral atmosphere ; to keep 
good sentiments uppermost, and to turn the strong current of feel- 
ing and opinion, as well as the censures of the law, and the denun- 
ciations of religion, against immorality and crime. YVe hope for a 
security, beyond the law, and above the law, in the prevalence of 
enlightened and well-principled moral sentiment. We hope to con- 
tinue and prolong the time, when, in the villages and farm-houses 
of New England, there may be undisturbed sleep within unbarred 
doors. And knowing that our government rests directly on the pub- 
lic will, that we may preserve it, we endeavour to give a safe and 
proper direction to that public v/ill. We do not, indeed, expect all 
men to be philosophers or statesmen; but we confidently trust, and 
our expectation of the duration of our system of government rests 
on that trust, that by the diffusion of general knowledge and good 
and virtuous sentiments, the political fabric i^iay be secure, as well 
against open violence and overthrow, as against the slow but sure 
undermining of licentiousness. 

We know, that" at the present time, an attempt is making in the 
English Parliament to provide by law for the education of the poor, 
and that a gentleman of distinguished character, (Mr. Brougham) 
has taken the lead, in presenting a plan to government for carrying 
that purpose into effect. And yet, although the representatives of 
the three kingdoms listened to him with astonishment as well as de- 
light, we hear no principles, with which we ourselves have not been 
familiar from youth; we see nothing in the plan, but an approach 
towards that system which has been established in New England 
for more than a century and a half It is said that in England, not 
more than one child in fifteen possesses the means of being taught to 
read and write; in Wales, one. in twenty; in France, until lately 
when some improvement was made, not more than one in thiytij-five. 
Now, it is hardly too strong to say, that in New England, every child 
vossesses such means. It would be difficult to find an instance to 



52" 

the contrary, unless where it should be owing to the negligence of 
the parent; — and in truth the means are actually used and enjoyed 
by nearly every one. 

A youth of fifteen, of either sex, who cannot both read and write, 
is very u afroyte wi-ly to be found. Who can make this comparison, 
or contemplate this spectacle, without delight and a feeling of just 
pride? Does any history show property more beneficently applied? 
Did any government ever subject the property of those who have 
estates, to a burden, for a purpose more favorable to the poor, or 
more useful to the whole community? 

A conviction of the importance of public instruction was one of 
the earliest sentiments of our ancestors. No lawgiver of ancient 
or modern times has expressed more just opinions, or adopted wiser 
measures, than the early records of the colony of Plymouth show 
to have prevailed here. Assembled on this very spot, a hundred 
and fifty-three years ago, the legislature of this colony declared, 
" For as much as the maintenance of good literature doth much tend 
to the advancement of the weal and flourishing state of societies and 
republics, this court doth therefore order, that in whatever township 
in this government, consisting of fifty families or upwards, any meet 
man shall be obtained to teach a grammar school, such township 
shall allow at least twelve pounds, to be raised by rate, on all the 
inhabitants." 

Having provided, that all youth should be instructed in the ele- 
ments of learning by the institution of free schools, our ancestors 
had yet another duty to perform. Men were to be educated for the 
professions, and the public. For this purpose they founded the 
University, and with incredible zeal and perseverance they cherish- 
ed and supported it, through all trials and discouragements. On 
the subject of the University, it is not possible for a son of New 
England to think without pleasure, nor to speak Avithout emotion. 
Nothing confers more honor on the state where it is established, or 
more utility on the country at large. A respectable University is 
an establishment, which must be the work of time. If pecuniary 
means were not wanting, no new institution could possess character 
and respectability at once. We owe deep obligation to our ances- 
tors, who began, almost on the moment of their arrival, the work of 
building up this institution. 

Although established in a difterent government, the colony of 
Plymouth manifested warm friendship for Harvard College. At an 
early period, its government took measures to promote a general 
subscription throughout all the towns in this colony, in aid of its 
small funds. Other colleges were subsequently founded and endow- 
ed, in other places, as the ability of the people allowed; and we may 
flatter ourselves, that the means of education, at present enjoyed in 
New England, are not only adequate to the difiiision of the elements 
of knowledore among all classes, but sufficient also for respectable 
attainments in literature and the sciences. 

Lastly, our ancestors have founded their system of government 
on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits, they believed, 
cannot safely be trusted on any other foundation than religious priu- 
ciple, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral 



53 

', aDits. Living under the heavenly light, of revelation, they hoped 
to "find all the social dispositions, all the duties which men owe to 
each other and to society, enforced and performed. Whatever makes 
men good Christians, makes them good citizens. Our fathers came 
here to enjoy their religion free and unmolested; and, at the end of 
two centuries, there is nothing upon which we can pronounce more 
confidently, nothing of which we can express a more deep and earnest 
conviction, than of the inestimable importance of that religion to 
man, both in regard to this life, and that which is to come. 

If the blessings of our political and social condition have not been 
too highly estimated, we cannot well overrate the responsibility and 
duty which they impose upon us. We hold these institutions of 
government, religion, and learning, to be transmitted, as well as en- 
joyed. We are in the line of conveyance, through which whatever 
has been obtained by the spirit and efforts of our ancestors, is to be 
communicated to our children. 

We are bound to maintain public liberty, and by the example of 
our own systems, to convince the world, that order, and law, relig- 
ion and morality, the rights of conscience, the rights of persons, 
and the rights of property, may all be preserved and secured, in the 
most perfect manner, byesa government entirely and purely elective. 
If we fail in this, our disaster will be signal, and will furnish an ar- 
gument, stronger than has yet been found, in support of those opin- 
ions, which maintain that government can rest safely on nothing but 
power and coercion. As far as experience may show errors in our 
establishments, we are bound to correct them; and if any practices 
exist, contrary to the principles of justice and humanity, within the 
reach of our laws or our influence, we are inexcusable if we do not 
exert ourselves to restrain and abolish them. 

I deem it my duty on this occasion to suggest, that the land is not 
yet wholly free from the contamination of a traffic, at which every 
feeling of humanity must forever revolt — I mean the African slave 
trade. Neither public sentiment, nor the law, has hitherto been able 
entirely to put an end to this odious and abominable trade. At the 
moment when -God, in his mercy, has blessed the Christian world 
with an universal peace, there is reason to fear, that to the disgrace 
of the Christian name and character, new efforts are making for the 
extension of this trade, by subjects and-citizens of Christian states, 
in whose hearts no sentiments of humanity or justice ir^hiriirits, and 
over whom neither the fear of God nor the fear of man exercises a 
control. In the sight of our law, the African slave trader is a pirate 
and a felon; and in the sight of Heaven, an offender far beyond the 
ordinary depth of human guilt. There is no brighter part of our 
history, than that which records the measures which have been adopt- 
ed by the government, at an early day, and at difi'ercnt times since, 
for the suppression of this traffic; and I would call on all the true 
sons of New England, to co-operate with the laws of man, and the 
justice of Heaven. If there be, within the extent of our knowledge 
or influence, any participation in this traffic, let us pledge ourselves 
here, upon the rock of Plymouth, to extirpate and destroy it. It is 
not fit that the land of the Pilgrims should bear the shame longer. 
I hear the sound of the hammer, I see the smoke of the furnaces 



64 

where manacles and fetters are still forged for human limbs. 1 
see the visages of those, who by steaUh, and at midnight, labor in 
this work of hell, foul and dark, as may become the artificers of 
such instruments of misery and torture. Let that spot be purified, 
or let it cease to be of New England. Let it be purified, or let it 
be set aside from the Christian world; let it be put out of the circle 
of human sympathies and human regards, and let civilized man 
henceforth have no communion with it, 

I would invoke those who fill the seats of justice, and all who 
minister at her altar, that they execute the wholesome and necessa- 
ry severity of the law. I invoke the ministers of our religion, that 
they proclaim its denunciation of these crimes, and add its solemn 
sanctions to the authority of human laws. If the pulpit be silent, 
whenever, or wherever, there may be a sinner bloody with this guilt, 
within the hearing of its voice, the pulpit is false to its trust. I call 
on the fair merchant, who has reaped his harvest upon the seas, 
that he assist in scourging from those seas the worst pirates which 
ever infested them. That ocean, which seems to wave with a gen- 
tle magnificence to waft the burden of an honest commerce, and 
to roll along its treasures with a conscious pride; that ocean, which 
hardy industry regards, even when the winds have ruftled its surface, 
as a field of grateful toil; what is it to the victim of this oppression, 
when he is brought to its shores, and looks forth upon it, tor the 
first time, from beneath chains, and bleeding with stripes? \Yhat 
is it to him, but a wide spread prospect of suflering, anguish and 
death ? Nor do the skies smile longer, nor is the air longer fragrant 
to him. The sun is cast down from heaven. An inhuman and 
accursed traflic has cut him off' in his manhood, or in his youth, 
from every enjoyment belonging to his being, and every blessing 
which his Creator intended lor him. 

The Christian communities send forth their emissaries of religion 
and letters, who stop, here and there, along the coast of the vast 
continent of Africa, and with painful and tedious efforts, make some 
almost imperceptible progress in the communication of knowledge, 
and in the general improvement of the natives who are immediately 
about them. Not thus slow and imperceptible is the transmission 
of the vices and bad passions which the subjects of Christian states 
carry to the land. The slave trade having touched the coast, its 
influence and its evils spread, like a pestilence, over the whole con- 
tinent, making savage wars more savage, and more frequent, and 
adding new and fierce passions to the contests of barbarians. 

I pursue this topic no further; except again to say, that all Chris- 
tendom being now blessed with peace, is bound by everythmg which 
belongs to its character, and to the character of the present age, to 
put a stop to this inhuman and disgraceful traflic. 

We are bound not only to maintain the general principles of pub- 
lic liberty, but to support also those existing forms of government, 
which haVe so well secured its enjoyment, and so highly promoted 
the public prosperity. It is now more than thirty years that these 
states have been united under the P'ederal constitution, and what- 
ever fortune may await them hereafter, it is impossible that this 
period of (heir history should not be regarded as distinguished l)v 



55 

signal prosperity and success. They must be sanguine, indeed, 
who can hope for benefit from change. Whatever division of the 
pubUc judgment may have existed in relation to particular measures 
of the government, all must agree, one should think, in the opinion, 
that in its general course it has been eminently productive of public 
happiness. Its most ardent friends could not well have hoped from 
it more than it has accomplished; and those who disbelieved or 
doubted ought to feel less concern about predictions, which the 
event has not verified, than pleasure in the good which has been 
obtained. Whoever shall hereafter write this part of our history, 
although he may see occasional errors or defects, will be able to 
record no great failure in the ends and objects of government. 
Still less will he be able to record any series of lawless and despot- 
ic acts, or any successful usurpation. His page will contain no 
exhibition of provinces depopulated, of civil authority habitually 
trampled down by military power, or of a community crushed by 
the burden of taxation. He will speak, rather, of public liberty 
protected, and public happiness advanced; of increased revenue, 
and population augmented beyond all example; of the growth of 
commerce, manufactures, and the arts; and of that happy condition, 
in which the restraint and coercion of government are almost invisi- 
ble and imperceptible, and its influence felt only in the benefits 
which it confers. We can entertain no better wish for our country 
than that this government may be preserved; nor have a clearer duty 
than to maintain and support it in the full exercise of all its just con- 
stitutional powers. 

The cause of science and literature also imposes upon us an im- 
portant and delicate trust. The wealth and population of the coun- 
try are now so far advanced, as to authorise the expectation of a 
correct literature, and a well formed taste, as well as respectable 
progress in the abstruse sciences. The country has risen from a 
state of colonial dependency; it has established an independent gov- 
ernment, and is now in the undisturbed enjoyment of peace and 
political security. The elements of knowledge are universally dif- 
fused, and the reading portion of the community large. Let us hope 
that the present may be an auspicious era of literature. If, almost 
on the day of their landing, our ancestors founded schools and en- 
dowed colleges, what obligations do not rest upon us, living under 
circumstances so much more favorable both for providing and for 
using the means of education? Literature becomes free institutions. 
It is the graceful ornament of civil liberty, and a happy restraint on 
the asperities, which political controversy sometimes occasions 
jitrst taste is not only an embellishment of society, but it rises almost 
v^'to the rank of the virtues, and diffuses positive good throughout the 
whole extent of its influence. There is a connexion between right 
feeling and right principles, and truth in taste is allied with truth in 
morality. With nothing in our past history to discourage us, and 
with something in our present condition and prospects to animate us, 
let us hope, that as it is our fortune to live in an age when we may 
behold a wonderful advancement of the country in all its other great 
interests, we may see also equal progress and success attend the 
^ c-i!Mse r'^ jpffprs 



56 

Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin, 
Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the 
Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its 
hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements 
of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institu- 
tions, civil, political, or literary. Let us cherish these sentiments, 
and extend this influence still more widely; in the full conviction, 
that that is the happiest society, which partakes in the highest de- 
gree of the mild and peaceable spirit of Christianity. 

The hours of" this day are rapidly flying, and this occasion will 
soon be passed. Neither we nor our children can expect to behold 
its return. They are in the distant regions of futurity, they exist 
only in the all-creating power of God, who shall stand here, a hun- 
dre<3 years hence, to trace, through us, their descent from the Pil- 
grims, and to survey, as we have now surveyed, the progress of their 
country, duting the. lapse of a century. We would anticipate their 
concurrence with us in our sentiments of deep regard for our com- 
mon ancestors. We would anticipate and partake the pleasure with 
which they will then recount the steps of New England's advance- 
ment. On the morning of that day, although it will not disturb us 
in our repose, the voice of acclamation and gratitude, commencing 
on the Rock of Plymouth, shall be transmitted through millions of 
the sons of the Pilgrims, till it lose itself in the murmurs of the 
Pacific seas. 

We would leave for the consideration of those who shall then oc- 
cupy our places, some proof that we hold the blessings transmitted 
from our fathers in just estimation; some proof of our attachment to 
the cause of good government, and of civil and religious liberty; 
some proof of a sincere and ardent desire to promote everything 
which may enlarge the understandings and improve the hearts of 
men. And when, from the long distance of an hundred years, they 
shall look back upon us, they shall know, at least, that we possessed 
affections, which, running backward, and warming with gratitude 
for what our ancestors have done for our happiness, run forward al- 
so to our posteritv, and meet them with cordial salutation, ere yet 
they have arrived on the shore of being. 

Advance, then, ye future generations! We would hail you, as you 
rise in your long succession, to fill the places which we now fill, and 
to taste the blessings of existence, where we are passing, and soon 
shall have passed, our own human duration. We bid you welcome 
to this pleasant land of the fathers. We bid you welcome to the 
healthful skies and the verdant fields of New England. We greet 
your accession to the great inheritance which we have enjoyed 
We welcome you to the blessings of good government, and religious 
liberty. We welcome you to the treasures of science, and the de- 
lights of learning. We welcome you to the transcendent sweets of 
domestic life, to the happiness of kindred, and parents, and children. 
We welcome you totlie immeasurable blessings of rational existence, 
the immortal hope of Christianity, and the light of everlastijig truth' 



ADDRESS 



DELIVERED AT THE LAYING OF THE CORNER STONE OF THE BUN 
KER HILL MONUMENT. JUNE 17, 1825 



This uncounted multitude before me, and around me, proves the 
feeling which the occasion has excited. These thousands of human 
faces, glowing with sympathy and joy, and, from the impulses of a 
common gratitude, turned reverently to heaven, in this spacious 
temple of the firmament, proclaim that the day, the place, and the 
purpose of our assembling have made a deep impression on our 
hearts. 

If, indeed, there be anything in local association fit to affect the 
mind of man, we need not strive to repress the emotions which agi- 
tate us here. We are among the sepulchres of our fathers. We 
are on ground, distinguished by their valor, their constancy, and the 
shedding of their blood. We are here, not to fix an uncertain date 
in our annals, nor to draw into notice an obscure and unknown 
spot. If our humble purpose had never been conceived, if we our- 
selves had never been born, the nth of June 1775 would have been 
a day on which all subsequent history would have. poured its light, 
and the eminence where we stand, a point of attraction to the eyes 
of successive generations. But we are Americans. We live in 
what may be called the early age of this great continent; and we 
know that our posterity, through all time, are here to suffer and en- 
joy the allotments of humanity. We see before us a propable train 
of great events; we know that our own fortunes have been happily 
cast; and it is natural, therefore, that we should be moved by the 
contemplation of occurrences which have guided our destiny before 
many of us were born, and settled the condition in which we should 
pass that portion of our existence, which God allows to men on earth. 

We do not read even of the discovery of this continent, without 
feeling something of a personal interest in the event; without being 
reminded how much it has aflected our own fortunes, and our own 
existence. It is more impossible for us, therefore, than for others, 
to contemplate with unaffected minds that interesting, I may say, 
that most touching and pathetic scene, when the great Discoverer 
of America stood on the deck of his shattered bark, the shades of 
night falling on the sea, yet no man sleeping; tossed on the billows 
8 



58 

of an unknown ocean, yet the stronger billows of alternate hope and 
despair tossing his own troubled thoughts; extending forward his 
harassed frame, straining westward his anxious and eager eyes till 
Heaven at last granted him a moment of rapture and ecstasy, in 
blessing his vision with the sight of the unknown world. 

Nearer to our times, more closely connected with our fates, and 
therefore still more interesting to our feelings and affections, is the 
settlement of our own country by colonists from England. We 
cherish every memorial of these worthy ancestors; we celebrate 
their patience and fortitude; we admire their daring enterprise; we 
teach our children to venerate their piety; and we are justly proud 
of being descended from men, who have set the world an example 
of founding civil institutions on the great and united principles of 
human freedom and human knowledge. To us, their children, the 
story of their labors and sufferings can never be without its interest. 
We shall not stand unmov^ed on the shore of Plymouth, while the 
sea continues to wash it;/nor will our brethren in another early and 
ancient colony, forget the place of its first establishment, till their 
river shall cease to flow by it./ No vigor of youth, no maturity of 
manhood, will lead the nation to forget the spots where its infancy 
was cradled and defended. 

But the great event, in the history of the continent, which we are 
now met here to commemorate; that prodigy of modern times, at 
once the wonder and the blessing of the world, is the American 
Revolution. In a day of extraordinary prosperity and happiness, 
of high national honor, distinction, and power, we are brought to- 
gether, in this place, by our love of country, by our admiration of 
exalted character, by our gratitude for signal services and patriotic 
devotion. 

The society, whose organ I am, was formed for the purpose ol 
rearing some honorable and durable monument to the memory of 
the early friends of American Independence. They have thought, 
that for this object no time could be more propitious, than the pres- 
ent prosperous and peaceful period; that no place could claim pref- 
erence over this memorable spot; and that no day could be more 
auspicious to the undertaking, than the anniversary of the battle 
which was here fought. The foundation of that monument Ave have 
now laid. With solemnities suited to the occasion, with prayers to 
Almighty God for his blessing, and in the midst of this cloud of wit- 
nesse", we have begun the work. . We trust it will be prosecuted, 
and that springing from a broad foundation, rising high m massive 
solidity and unadorned grandeur, it may remain, as long as Heaven 
permits the works of man to last, a fit emblem, both of the events 
in memory of which it is raised, and of the gratitude of those who 
have reared it. 

W^e know, indeed, that the record of illustrious actions is mjst 
safely deposited in the universal remembrance of mankind. V, e 
know, that if we could cause this structure to ascend, not only till 
it reached the skies, but till it pierced them, its broad surfaces could 
still contain but part of that, which, in an age of knowledge, hath 
already been spread over the earth, and which history charges itself 



59 

with making known to all future times. We know, that no inscrip- 
tion on entablatures less broad than the earth itself, can carry infor- 
mation of the events v/e commemorate, where it has not already 
gone; and that no structure, which shall not outlive the duration of 
letters and knowledge among men, can prolong the memorial. But 
our object is, by this editice to show our own deep sense of the val- 
ue and impoitancc of the achievements of our ancestors; and, by 
presenting this work of gratitude to the eye, to keep alive similar 
sentiments, and to foster a constant regard for the principles of the 
Revolution. Human beings are composed not of reason only, but 
of imagination also, and sentiment; and that is neither wasted nor 
misapplied which is appropriated to the purpose of giving right di- 
rection to sentiments, and opening proper springs of feeling in the 
heart. Let it not be supposed that our object is to perpetuate na- 
tional hostility, or even to cherish a mere military spirit. It is high- 
er, purer, noJaler. We consecrate our work to the spirit of national 
independence, and we wish that the light of peace may rest upon it 
forever. We rear a memorial of our conviction of that unmeasured 
benefit, which has been conferred on our own land, and of the hap- 
py influences, which have been produced, by the same events, on 
the general interests of mankind. We come, as Americans, to mark 
a spot, which must forever be dear to us and our posterity. We 
wish, that whosoever, in all coming time, shall turn his eye hither, 
may behold that the place is not undistinguished, where the first 
great battle of the Revolution was fought. We wish, that this struc- 
ture may proclaim the magnitude and importance of that event, to 
every class and every age. We v.'ish, that infancy may learn the 
purpose of its erection from maternal lips, and that weary and with- 
ered age may behold it, and be solaced by the recollections which 
it suggests. We wish, that labor may look up here, and be proud, 
in the midst of its toil. We wish, that, in those days of disaster, 
which, as they come on all nations, must be expected to come on us 
also, desponding patriotism may turn its eyes hitherward, and be 
assured that the foundations of our national power still stand strong. 
We wish, that this column, rising towards heaven among the point- 
ed spires of so many temples dedicated to God, may contribute also 
to produce, in all minds, a pious feeling of dependence and gratitude. 
We wish, finally, that the last object on the sight of him who leaves 
his native shore, and the first to gladden his who revisits it, may be 
something which shall remind him of the liberty and the glory of 
his country. Let it rise, till it meet the sun in his coming; let the 
earliest light of the morning gild it, and parting day linger and play 
on its summit. 

We live in a most extraordinary age. Events so various and so 
important, that they might crowd and distinguish centuries, are, in 
our times, compressed within the compass of a single life. When 
has it happened that history has had so much to record, in the same 
term of years, as since the 17th of June 1775? Our own Revolu- 
tion, which, under other circumstances, might itself have been ex- 
pected to occasion a war of half a century, has been achieved; 
twenty-four sovereign and independent states erected; and a general 



60 

government established over them, so safe, so wise, so free, so prac- 
tical, that we might well wonder its establishment should have been 
accomplished so soon, were it not far the greater wonder that V. 
should have been established at all. Two or three millions of peo- 
ple have been augmented to twelve; and the great forests of the 
West prostrated beneath the arm of successful industry; and the 
dwellers on the banks of the Ohio and the Mississippi, become the 
fellow citizens and neighbours of those who cultivate the hills of 
New England. We have a commerce, that leaves no sea unex- 
plored; navies, which take no law from superior force; revenues^ 
adequate to all the exigencies of government, almost without taxa- 
tion; and peace with all nations, founded on equal rights and mutual 
respect. 

Europe, within the same period, has been agitated by a mighty 
revolution, which, while it has been felt in the individual condition 
and happiness of almost every man, has shaken to the centre her 
political fabric, and dashed against one another thrones, which liad 
stood tranquil for ages. On this, our continent, our own example 
has been followed; and colonies have sprung up to be nations. Un- 
accustomed sounds of liberty and free government have reached us 
from beyond the track of the sun; and at this moment the dominion 
of European power, in this continent, from the place where we stand 
to the south pole, is annihilated torever. 

In the meantime, both in Europe and America, such has been 
the general progress of knowledge; such the improvements in leg- 
islation, in commerce, in the arts, in letters, and above all in liberal 
ideas, and the general spirit of the age, that the whole world seems 
changed. 

Yet, notwithstanding that this is but a faint abstract of the things 
which have happened since the day of the battle of Bunker Hill, we 
are but fitly years removed from it; and we now stand here, to en- 
joy all the blessings of our own condition, and to look abroad on 
the brightened prospects of the world, while we hold still among us 
some of those, who were active agents in the scenes of 1775, and 
who are now here, from every quarter of New England, to visit, 
once more, and under circumstances so affecting, I had almost said 
so overwhelming, this renowned theatre of their courage and patri 
otism. 

Venerable men! you have come down to us, from a former gen- 
eration. Heaven has bounteously lengthened out your lives, that 
you might behold this joyous day. Yoli are now, where you stood, 
fifty years ago, this verv hour, with your brothers, and your neigh- 
bours, shoulder to shoulder, in the strife for your country. Behold, 
how altered! The same heavens are indeed over your heads; the 
same ocean rolls at your feet; but all else, how changed! You hear 
now no roar of hostile cannon, you see no mixed volumes of sinoke 
and flame rising from burning Charlestown. The ground strowed 
with the dead and the dying; the impetuous charge; the steady and 
successful repulse; the loud call to repeated assault; the summon- 
ing of all that is manly to repeated resistance; a thousand bosoms 
freely and fearlessly bared in an instant to whatever of terror there 



61 

may be in war and death; — all these you have witnessed, but you 
witness them no more. All is peace. The heights of yonder me- 
tropolis, its towers and roofs, which you then saw filled with wives 
and children and countrymen in distress and terror, and looking 
with unutterable emotions for the issue of the combat, have presented 
you to-day with the sight of its whole happy population, come out 
to welcome and greet you with an universal jubilee. Yonder proud 
ships, by a felicity of position appropriately lying at the foot of this 
mount, and seeming fondly to cling around it, are not means of an- 
noyance to you, but your country's own means of distinction and 
defence. All is peace; and God has granted you this sight of your 
country's happiness, ere you slumber in the grave forever. He has 
allowed you to behold and to partake the reward of your patriotic 
toils; and he has allowed us, your sons and countrynien, to meet 
you here, and in the name of the present generation, in the name 
of your country, in the name of liberty, to thank you! 

But, alas! you are not all here! Time and the sword have thin- 
ned your ranks. Prescott, Putnam, Stark, Brooks, Read, Pome- 
roy. Bridge! our eyes seek for you in vain amidst this broken band. 
You are gathered to your fathers, and live only to your country in 
her grateful remembrance, and your own bright example. But let 
us not too much grieve, that you have met the common fate of men. 
You lived, at least, long enough to know that your work had been 
nobly and successfully accomplished. You lived to see your coun- 
try's independence established, and to sheathe your swords from 
war. On the light of Liberty you saw arise the light of Peace, 

"•^^ * another morn, 

Risen on mid-noon ; ' — 

and the sky, on which you closed your eyes, was cloudless. 

But — ah! — Him! the first great Martyr in this great cause! 
Him! the premature victim of his own self-devoting heart! Him! 
the head of our civil councils, and the destined leader of our mili- 
tary bands; whom nothing brought hither, but the unquenchable 
fire of his own spirit; Him! cut off by Providence, in the hour of 
overwhelming anxiety and thick gloom; falling, ere he saw the star 
of his country rise; pouring out his generous blood, like water, be- 
fore he knew whether it would fertilize a land of freedom or of bon- 
dage ! how shall I struggle with the emotions, that stifle the utter- 
ance of thy name! — Our poor work may perish; but thine shall 
endure! This monument may moulder away; the solid ground it 
rests upon may sink down to a level with the sea; but thy memory 
shall not fail! Wheresoever among men a heart shall be found, 
that beats to the transports of patriotism and liberty, its aspirations 
shall be to claim kindred with thy spirit! 

But the scene amidst which we stand does not permit us to con- 
fine our thoughts or our sympathies to those fearless spirits, who 
hazarded or lost their lives on this consecrated spot. We have the 
happiness to rejoice here in the presence of a most worthy reprC" 
gentation of the survivors of the whole Revolutionary Army. 



62 

Veterans! jou are the remnant of many a well fought fieui. 
You bring with you marks of honor from Trenton and Monmouth, 
from Yorktown, Camden, Bennington, and Saratoga. Veterans 
OF HALF A century! whou in your youthful days, you put evcrythinf>- 
at hazard in your country's cause, good as that cause was, and san- 
guine as youth is, still your fondest hopes did not stretch onward to an 
hour like this! At a period to which you could not reasonably have 
expected to arrive; at a moment of national prosperity, such as you 
could never have foreseen, you are now met, here, to enjoy the fel- 
lowship of old soldiers, and to receive the overflowings of an univer- 
sal gratitude. 

But your agitated countenances and your heaving breasts inform 
me that even this is not an unmixed joy. I perceive that a tumult 
of contending feelings rushes upon you. The images of the dead, 
as well as the persons of the living, throng to your embraces. The 
scene overwhelms you, and I turn from it. May the Father of all 
mercies smile upon your declining years, and bless them! And 
when you shall here have exchanged your embraces; when you 
shall once more have pressed the hands which have been so often 
extended to give succour in adversity, or grasped in the exultation 
of victory; then look abroad into this lovely land, which your young 
valor defended, and mark the happiness with which it is filled; yea, 
look abroad into the whole earth, and see what a name you have 
contributed to give to your country, and what a praise you have 
added to freedom, and then rejoice in the sympathy and gratitude, 
which beam upon your last days from the improved condition of 
mankind. 

The occasion does not require of me any particular account of 
the battle of the 17th of June, nor any detailed narrative of the 
events which immediately preceded it. These are familiarly known 
to all. In the progress of the great and interesting controversy, 
Massachusetts and the town of Boston had become early and marked 
objects of the displeasure of the British Parliament. ''This had 
been manifested, in the Act for altering the Government of the 
Province, and in that for shutting up the Port of Boston. Nothing 
sheds more honor on our early history, and nothing better shows 
how little the feelings and sentiments of the colonies were known 
or regarded in England, than the impression which these measures 
everywhere produced in America. It had been anticipated, that 
while the other colonies would be terrified by the severity of the 
punishment inflicted on Massachusetts, the other seaports would be 
governed by a mere spirit of gain; and that, as Boston was now cut off 
from all commerce, the unexpected advantage, which this blow on 
her was calculated to confer on other towns, would be greedily en- 
joyed. How miserably such reasoners deceived themselves! How 
little they knew of the depth, and the strength, and the intenseness 
of that feeling of resistance to illew.il acts of power, which posses- 
sed the whole American people!/ Everywhere the unworthy boon 
was rejected with scorn. The fortunate occasion was seized, every- 
where, to show to the whole world, that the colonies were swayed by 
no local interest, no partial interest, no selfish interest. The tempt- 



63 

ation to profit by the punishment of Boston was strongest to our 
neighbours of Salem. Yet Salem was precisely the place, where 
this miserable proffer was spurned, in a tone of the most lofly self- 
respect, and the most indignant patriotism./ " We are deeply aflect- 
ed," said its inhabitants, " with the sense of our public calamities; 
but the miseries that are now rapidly hastening on our brethren in 
the capital of the Province, greatly excite our commiseration. By 
shutting up the port of Boston, some imagine that the course of trade 
might be turned hither and to our benetit; but we must be dead to 
every idea of justice, lost to all feelings of humanity, could we in- 
dulge a thought to seize on wealth, and raise our fortunes on the ruin 
of our suffering neighbours." 'These noble sentiments were not 
confined to our immediate vicinity. In that day of general affection 
and brotherhood, the blow given to Boston smote on every patriotic 
heart, from one end of the country to the other Virginia and the 
Carolinas, as well as Connecticut and New Hampshire, felt and 
proclaimed the cause to be their own. The Continental Congress, 
then holding its first session in Philadelphia, expressed its sympathy 
for the suffering inhabitants of Boston, and addresses were received 
from all quarters, assuring them that the cause was a common one, 
and should be met by common efforts and common sacrifices. The 
Congress of Massachusetts responded to these assurances; and in an 
address to the Congress at Philadelphia, bearing the oflicial signa- 
ture, perhaps among the last, of the immortal Warren, notwithstand- 
ing the severity of its suffering and the magnitude of the dangers 
which threatened it, it was declared, that this colony " is ready, at 
all times, to spend and to be spent in the cause of America." 

But the hour drew iiigh, which was to put professions to the proof, 
and to determine whether the authors of these mutual pledges were 
ready to seal them in blood. The tidings of Lexington and Concord 
had no sooner spread, than it was universally felt, that the time was 
at last come for action, A spirit pervaded all ranks, not transient, 
not boisterous, but deep, solemn, determined, 

" totamque infusa per artus 
Mens agitat molein, et magno se corpore miscet." 

War, on their own soil and at their own doors, was, indeed, a 
strange work to the yeomanry of New England; but their consciences 
were convinced of its necessity, their country called them to it, and 
they did not withhold themselves from the perilous trial. The ordi- 
nary occupations of life were abandoned; the plough was staid in the 
unfinished furrow; wives gave up their husbands, and mothers gave 
up their sons, to the battles of a civil war. Death might come, in 
honor, on the field; it might come, in disgrace, on the scaffold. Foi 
either and for both they were prepared. The sentiment of Quincy 
was full in their hearts. " Blandishments," said that distinguished 
son of genius and patriotism, " will not fascinate us, nor will threats 
of a halter intimidate; for, under God, we are determined, that where- 
soever, whensoever, or howsoever we shall be called to make our 
exit, we will die free men." 

The 17th of June saw the four New England colonies standing 
here, side by side, to triumph or to fall together; and there was with 



64 

them from that moment to the end of the war, what I hope will re- 
main with them forever, one cause, one country, one heart. 

The battle of Bunker Hill was attended with the most important 
effects beyond its immediate result as a military engagement. It 
created at once a state of open, public war. There could now be 
no longer a question of proceeding against individuals, as guilty of 
treason or rebellion. That fearful crisis was past. The appeal now 
lay to the sword, and the only question was, whether the spirit and 
the resources of the people would hold out, till the object should be 
accomplished. Nor were its general consequences confined to our 
own country. The previous proceedings of the colonies, their ap- 
peals, resolutions, and addresses, had made their cause known to 
Europe, Without boasting, we may say, that in no age or country, 
has the public cause been maintained with more force of argument, 
more power of illustration, or more of that persuasion which excited 
feeling and elevated principle can alone bestow, than the revolution- 
ary state papers exhibit. These papers will forever deserve to be 
studied, not only for the spirit which they breathe, but for the ability 
with which they were written. 

To this able vindication of their cause, the colonies had now ad- 
ded a practical and severe proof of their own true devotion to it, 
and evidence also of the power which they could bring to^its support. 
All now saw, that if America fell, she would not fall without a strug- 
gle. Men felt sympathy and regard, as well as surprise, when they 
beheld these infant states, remote, unknown, unaided, encounter the 
power of England, and in the first considerable battle, leave more 
of their enemies dead on the field, in proportion to the number of 
combatants, than they had recently known in the wars of Europe. 

Information of these events, circulating through Europe, at length 
reached the ears of one who now hears me. He has not forgotten 
the emotion, which the fame of Bunker Hill, and the name of Warren, 
excited in his youthful breast. 

Sir, we are assembled to commemorate the establishment of great 
public principles of liberty, and to do honor to the distinguished 
dead. The occasion is too severe for eulogy to the living. But, 
sir, your interesting relation to this country, the peculiar circum- 
stances which surround you and surround us, call on me to express 
the happiness which we derive from your presence and aid in this 
solemn commemoration. 

Fortunate, fortunate man! with what measure of devotion will you 
not thank God, lor the circumstances of your extraordinary life! 
You are connected with both hemispheres and with two generations. 
Heaven saw fit to ordain, that the electric spark of Liberty should 
be conducted, through you, from the new world to the old; and we, 
who are now here to perform this duty of patriotism, have all of us 
long ago received it in charge from our fathers to cheTish your name 
and your virtues. You will account it an instance of your good for- 
tune, sir, that you crossed the seas to visit us at a time which ena- 
bles you to be present at this solemnity. You now behold the field, 
the renown of which reached you in the heart of France, and caus- 
ed a thrill in your ardent bosom. You see the lines of the little 



65 

redoubt thrown up by the incredible diligence of Prescott; defended, 
to the last extremity, by his lion-hearted valor; and within which the 
corner stone of our monument has now taken its position. You see 
where Warren fell, and where Parker, Gardner, McCleary, Moore, 
and other early patriots fell with him. Those who survived that 
day, and whose lives have been prolonged to the present hour, are 
now around you. Some of them you have known in the trying 
scenes of the war. Behold! they now stretch forth their feeble 
arms to embrace you. Behold! they raise their trembling voices 
to invoke the blessing of God on you, and yours, forever. 

Sir, you have assisted us in laying the foundation of this edifice. 
You have heard us rehearse, with our feeble commendation, the names 
of departed patriots. Sir, monuments and eulogy belong to the dead. 
We give them, this day, to Warren and his associates. On other 
occasions they have been given to your more immediate companions 
in arms, to Washington, to Greene, to Gates, Sullivan, and Lincoln. 
Sir, we have become reluctant to grant these, our highest and last 
honors, further. We would gladly hold them yet back from the lit- 
tle remnant of that immortal band, Serus in ccelum redeas. Illus- 
trious as are your merits, yet far, oh, very far distant be the day, 
when any inscription shall bear your name, or any tongue pronounce 
its eulogy! 

The leading reflection, to which this occasion seems to invite us, 
respects the great changes which have happened in the fifty years, 
since the battle of Bunker Hill was fought. And it peculiarly marks 
the character of the present age, that, in looking at these changes, 
and in estimating their effect on our condition, we are obliged 
to consider, not what has been done in our own country only, but 
in others also. In these interesting times, while nations are making 
separate and individual advances in improvement, they make, too, a 
common progress; like vessels on a common tide, propelled by the 
gales at different rates, according to their several structure and man- 
agement, but all moved forward by one mighty current beneath, 
strong enough to bear onward whatever does not sink beneath it. 

A chief distinction of the present day is a community of opinions 
and knowledge amongst men, in different nations, existing in a de- 
gree heretofore unknown. Knowledge has, in our time, triumplied, 
and is triumphing, over distance, over difference of languages, over 
diversity of habits, over prejudice, and over bigotry. The civilized 
and Christian world is fast learning the great lesson, that difference 
of nation does not imply necessary hostility, andtiiat all contact need 
not be war. The whole world is becf)ming a common field for in- 
tellect to act in. Energy of mind, genius, power, wheresoever it 
exists, may speak out in any tongue, and the world will hear it. A 
great chord of sentiment and feeling runs through two continents, 
and vibrates over both. Every breeze waffs intelligence from coun- 
try to country; every wave rolls it; all give it forth, and all in turn 
re<^eive it. There is a vast commerce of ideas; there are marts and 
exchanges for intellectual discoveries, and a wonderful fellowship of 
those individual intelligences which njake up the mind and opinion 
of the age. Mind is the great lever of all things; human thought ia 

4 ' 



66 

the process by which human ends are uUimately answered; and the 
diffusion of knowledge, so astonishing in the last half century, has 
rendered innumerable minds, variously gitled by nature, competent 
to be competitors, or fellow-workers, on the theatre of intellectual 
operation. 

From these causes, important improvements have taken place in 
the personal condition of individuals. Generally speaking, man- 
kind are not only better fed, and better clothed, but they are able 
also to enjoy more leisure; they possess more refinement and more 
self-respect. A superior tone of education, manners, and habits 
prevails. This remark, most true in its application to our own coun- 
try, is also partly true, when applied elsewhere. It is proved by 
the vastly augmented consvmiption of those articles of manufacture 
and of commerce, which contribute to the comforts and the decen- 
cies of life; an augmentation which has far outrun the progress of 
population. And while the unexampled and almost incredible use 
of machinery would seem to supply the place of labor, labor still 
finds its occupation and its reward; so wisely has Providence adjust- 
ed men's wants and desires to their condition and their capacity. 

Any adequate survey, however, of the progress made in the last 
half century, in the polite and the mechanic arts, in machinery and 
manufactures, in commerce and agriculture, in letters and in science, 
would require volumes. I must abstain wholly from these subjects, 
and turn, for a moment, to the contemplation of M'hat has been done 
on the great question of politics and government. This is the mas- 
ter topic of the age; and during the whole fitly years, it has intensely 
occupied the thoughts of men. The nature of civil government, 
its ends and uses, have been canvassed and investigated; ancient 
opinions attacked and defended; new ideas recommended and resist- 
ed, by whatever power the mind of man could bring to the contro- 
versy. From the closet and the public halls the debate has been 
transferred to the field; and the world has been shaken by wars of 
unexampled magnitude, and the greatest variety of fortune. A day 
of peace has at length succeeded; and now that the strife has sub- 
sided, and the smoke cleared away, we may begin to see what has 
actually been done, permanently changing the state and condition 
of human society. And without dwelling on particular circum- 
stances, it is most apparent, that, from the beforementioned causes 
of augmented knowledge and improved individual condition, a real, 
substantial, and important change has taken place, and is taking 
place, greatly beneficial, on the whole, to human liberty and human 
liappiness. 

The great wheel of political revolution began to move in America. 
Here its rotation was guarded, regular, and safe. Transferred to 
the other continent, from unfortunate but natural causes, it received 
an irregular and violent impulse; it whirled along with a fearful ce- 
lerity; till at length, like the chariot wheels in the races of antiquity, 
it took fire from the rapidity of its own motion, and blazed onward, 
spreading conHagration and terror around. 

We learn from the result of this experiment, how fortunate was 
our own condition, and how admirably the character of our people 
was calculated for making the great example of popular govern- 



67 

ments. The possession of power did not turn the heads of the 
American people, for they had long been in the habit of exercising 
a great portion of self-control. Although the paramount authority 
of the parent state existed over them, yet a large lield of legislation 
had always been open to our colonial assemblies. They were ac- 
customed to representative bodies and the forms of free government; 
they understood the doctrine of the division of power among dilier- 
ent branches, and the necessity of checks on each. The charac- 
ter of our countrymen, moreover, was sober, moral, and religious; 
and there was little in the change to shock their feelings of justice 
and humanity, or even to disturb an honest prejudice. We had no 
domestic throne to overturn, no privileged orders to cast down, no 
violent changes of property to encounter. In the American Revo- 
lution, no man sought or wished for more than to defend and enjoy 
his own. None hoped for plunder or for spoil. Rapacity was un- 
known to it; the axe was not among the instruments of its accom- 
plishment; and we all know that it could not have lived a single day 
under any well founded imputation of possessing a tendency ad- 
verse to the Christian religion. 

It need not surprise us, that, under circumstances less auspicious, 
political revolutions elsewhere, even when well intended, have ter- 
minated difterently. It is, indeed, a great achievement, it is the 
master work of the world, to establish governments entirely popular, 
on lasting foundations; nor is it easy, indeed, to introduce the popu- 
lar principle at all, into governments to which it has been altogether 
a stranger. It cannot be doubted, however, that Europe has come 
out of the contest, in which she has been so long engaged, with 
greatly superior knowledge, and, in many respects, a highly im- 
proved condition. Whatever benefit has been acquired, is likely to 
be retained, for it consists mainly in the acquisition of more en- 
lightened ideas. And although kingdoms and provinces may be 
wrested from the hands that hold them, in the same manner they 
were obtained; although ordinary and vulgar power may, in human 
affairs, be lost as it has been won; yet it is the glorious prerogative 
of the empire of knowledge, that what it gains it never loses. On 
the contrary,* it increases by the multiple of its own power; all its 
ends become means; all its attainments, helps to new conquests. 
Its whole abundant harvest is but so much seed wheat, and nothing 
has ascertained, and nothing can ascertain, the amount of ultimate 
product. 

Under the influence of this rapidly increasing knowledge, the 
people have begun, in all forms of government, to think, and to 
reason, on affairs of state. Regarding government as an institution 
for the public good, they demand a knowledge of its operations, and 
a participation in its exercise. A call for the representative system, 
wherever it is not enjoyed, and where there is already intelligence 
enough to estimate its vahie, is perseveringly made. Where men 
may speak out, they demand it; where the bayonet is at their throats, 
they pray for it. 

When Louis XIV. said, " I am the state," he expressed the es- 
sence of the doctrine of unlimited power. By the rules of that 
system, the people are disconnected from the state; they are its sub- 



68 

jects; it is their lord. These ideas, founded in the love of power, 
and long supported by the excess and the abuse of it, are yielding, 
in our age, to other opinions; and the civihzed world seems at last 
to be proceeding to the conviction of that fundamental and manifest 
truth, that the powers of government are but a trust, and that they 
cannot be lawfully exercised but for the good of the community. 
As knowledge is more and more extended, this conviction becomes 
more and more general. Knowledge, in truth, is the great sun in 
the firmament. Life and power are scattered with all its beams. 
The prayer of the Grecian combatant, when enveloped in unnatural 
clouds and darkness, is the appropriate political supplication for the 
people of every country not yet blessed with free institutions; 

' Dispel this cloud, the light of heaven restore, 
Give me to see — and .\jax asks no more.' 

We may hope, that the growing influence of enlightened senti- 
ments will promote the permanent peace of the world. Wars, to 
maintain family alliances, to uphold or to cast down dynasties, to 
regulate successions to thrones, which have occupied so much room 
in the history of modern times, if not less likely to happen at all, 
will be less likely to become general and involve many nations, as 
the great principle shall be more and more established, that the in- 
terest of the world is peace, and its first great statute, that every 
nation possesses the power of establishing a government for itself 
But public opinion has attained also an influence over governments, 
which do not admit the popular principle into their organization. 
A necessary respect for the judgment of the world operates, in some 
measure, as a control over the most unlimited forms of authority. 
It is owing, perhaps, to this truth, that the interesting struggle of 
the Greeks has been suffered to go on so long, without a direct in- 
terference, either to wrest that country from its present masters, 
and add it to other powers, or to execute the system of pacification 
by force, and, with united strength, lay the neck of Christian and 
civilized Greece at the foot of the barbarian Turk. Let us thank 
God that we live in an age, when something has influence besides 
the bayonet, and when the sternest authority does not venture to 
encounter the scorching power of public reproach. Any attempt 
of the kind I have mentioned, should be met by one universal burst 
of indignation; the air of the civilized world ought to be made too 
warm to be comfortably breathed liy any who would hazard it. 

It is, indeed, a touching reflection, that while, in the fulness of 
our country's happiness, we rear this monument to her honor, we 
look for instruction, in our undertaking, to a country which is now 
in fearfiil contest, not for works of art or memorials of glory, but 
for her own existence. Let her be assured, that she is not forgot- 
ten in the world; that her efforts are applauded, and that constant 
prayers ascend for her success. And let us cherish a confident 
hope for her final triumph. If the true spark of religious and civil 
liberty be kindled, it will burn. Human agency cannot extinguish 
it. Like the earth's central fire it may be smothered for a time; the 
ocean may overwhelm it; mountains may press it down; but its in- 
herent and unconquerable force will heave both the ocean and the 



69 

land, and at sometime or another, in some place or another, the 
volcano will break out and flame up to heaven. 

Among the great events of the half century, we must reckon, 
certainly, the Revolution of South America; and we are not likely 
to overrate the importance of that Revolution, either to the people 
of the country itself or to the rest of the world. The late Spanish 
colonies, now independent states, under circumstances less favorable, 
doubtless, than attended our own Revolution, have yet successfully 
commenced their national existence. They have accomplished the 
great object of establishing their independence; they are known and 
acknowledged in the world; and although in regard to their systems 
of government, their sentiments on rehgious toleration, and their pro- 
visions for public instruction, they may have yet much to learn, it 
must be admitted that they have risen to the condition of settled and 
established states, more rapidly than could have been reasonably an- 
ticipated. They already furnish an exhilarating example of the dif- 
ference between free governments and despotic misrule. Their 
commerce, at this moment, creates a new activity in all the great 
marts of the world. They show themselves able, by an exchange 
of commodities, to bear an useful part in the intercourse of nations, 

A new spirit of enterprise and industry begins to prevail; all the 
great interests of society receive a salutary impulse; and the progress 
of information not only testifies to an improved condition, but con- 
stitutes, itself, the highest and most essential improvement. 

When the battle of Bunker Hill was fought, the existence of 
South America was scarcely felt in the civilized world. The thir- 
teen little colonies of North America habitually called themselves 
the " Continent." Borne down by colonial subjugation, monopoly, 
and bigotry, these vast regions of the South were hardly visible 
above the horizon. But in our day there hath beea, as it were, a 
new creation. The Southern Hemisphere emerges from the sea. 
Its lofty mountains begin to lift themselves into the light of heaven; 
its broad and fertile plains stretch out, in beauty, to the eye of civ- 
ilized man, and at the mighty bidding of the voice of political liber- 
ty the waters of darkness retire. 

And, now; let us indulge an honest exultation in the conviction 
of the benefit, which the example of our country has produced, and 
is likely to produce, on human freedom and human happiness. And 
let us endeavour to comprehend, in all its magnitude, and to feel, in 
all its importance, the part assigned to us in the great drama of hu- 
man affairs. We are placed at the head of the system of represen- 
tative and popular governments. Thus far our example shows, that 
such governments are compatible, not only with respectability and 
power, but with repose, with peace, with security of personal rights, 
with good laws, and a just administration. 

We are not propagandists. Wherever other systems are preferred, 
either as being thought better in themselves, or as better suited to 
existing condition, we leave the preference to be enjoyed. Our his- 
tory hitherto proves, however, that the popular form is practicable, 
and that with wisdom and knowledge men may govern themselves; 
and the duty incumbent on us is, to preserve the consistency of this 



70 

cheering example, and take care that nothing may weaken its au- 
thority with the world. If, in our case, the Representative system 
uUinuitely fail, popular governments must be pronounced impossible. 
No combination of circumstances more favorable to the exi)eriment 
can ever be expected to occur. The last hopes of mankind, there- 
fore, rest with us; and if it should be proclaimed, that our example 
had become an argument against the experiment, the knell of popu- 
lar liberty would be sounded throughout the earth. 

These are excitements to duty; but they are not suggestions of 
doubt. Our history and our condition, all that is gone before us, 
and all that surrounds us, authorise the belief, that popular govern- 
ments, though subject to occasional variations, perhaps not always 
for the better, in form, may yet, in their general character, be as 
durable and permanent as other systems. We know, indeed, that, 
in our country, any other is impossible. The Principle of PVee 
Governments adheres to the American soil. It is bedded in it; im- 
movable as its mountains. 

And let the sacred obligations which have devolved on this gen- 
eration, and on us, sink deep into our hearts. Those are daily drop- 
ping from among us, who established our liberty and our government. 
The great trust now descends to new hands. Let us apply ourselves 
to that which is presented to us, as our appropriate oltject. We 
can win no laurels in a war for Independence. Earlier and worthier 
hands have gathered them all. Nor are there places for us by the 
side of Solon, and Alfred, and other founders of states. Our fath- 
ers have filled them. But there remains to us a great duty of defence 
and preservation; and there is opened to us, also, a noble pursuit, to 
which the spirit of the times strongly invites us. Our proper busi- 
ness is improvement. Let our age be the age of improvement. In 
a day of peace, let us advance the arts of peace and the works of 
peace. Let us develope the resources of our land, call forth its pow- 
ers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests, and see 
whether we also, in our day and generation, may not perform some- 
thing worthy to he remembered. Let us cultivate a true spirit of 
union and harmony. In pursuing the great objects, which our con- 
dition points out to us, let us act under a settled conviction, and an 
habitual feeling, that these twenty-four states are one country. 
Let our conceptions be enlarged to the circle of our duties. Let 
us extend our ideas over the whole of the vast field in which we are 
called to act. Let our object be, our country, our whole country, 
AND nothing but OUR COUNTRY. And, by the blessing of God, may 
that country itself become a vast and splendid Monument, not of 
oppression and terror, but of Wisdom, of Peace, and of Liberty, 
upon which the world may gaze, with admiration, forever ! 



DISCOURSE 



IN COMMEMORATION OF THE LIVES AND SERVICES OF JOHN ADAMS 
AND THOMAS JEFFERSON, DELIVERED IN FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON. 
AUGUST 2, 1826. 

This is an unaccustomed spectacle. For the first time, fellow 
citizens, badges of mourning shroud the columns and overhang the 
arches of this Hall. These" walls, which were consecrated, so long 
ago, to the cause of American liberty, which witnessed her infant 
struggles, and rung with the shouts of her earliest victories, proclaim, 
now, that distinguished friends and champions of that great cause 
have fallen. It is right that it should be thus. The tears which 
flow, and the honors that are paid, when the Founders of the Re- 
public die, give hope that the Republic itself may be immortal. It 
is fit, that by public assembly and solemn observance, by anthem 
and by eulogy, we commemorate the services of national benefac- 
tors, extol their virtues, and render thanks to God for eminent bles- 
sings, early given and long continued, to our favored country. 

ADAMS and JEFFERSON are no more; and we are assembled, 
fellow citizens, the aged, the middle aged and the young, by the 
spontaneous impulse of all, under the authority of the municipal 
government, with the presence of the chief magistrate of the Com- 
monwealth, and others its ofhcial representatives, the university, and 
the learned societies, to bear our part, in those manifestations of re- 
spect and gratitude which universally pervade the land. Adams and 
Jefferson are no more. On our fiftieth anniversary, the great day of 
National Jubilee, in the very hour of public rejoicing, in the midst 
of echoing and reechoing voices of thanksgiving, while their own 
names were on all tongues, they took their flight, together, to the 
world of spirits. 

If it be true that no one can safely be pronounced happy while he 
lives; if that event which terminates life can alone crown its honors 
and its glory, what felicity is here! The great Epic of their lives, 
how happily concluded! Poetry itself has hardly closed illustrious 
lives, and finished the career of earthly renown, by such a consum- 
mation. If we had the power, we could not wish to reverse this 
dispensation of the Divine Providence. The great objects of life 
were accomplished, the drama was ready to be closed; it has closed; 



72 

our patriots have fallen; but so fallen, at such age, with such coin- 
cidence, on such a day, that we cannot rationally lament that that 
end has come, which we knew could not be long deferred. 

Neither of these great Ynen, fellow citizens, could have died, at 
any time, without leaving an immense void in our American society. 
They have been so intimately, and for so long a time, blended with 
the history of the country, and especially so united, in our thoughts 
and recollections, with the events of the Revolution, that the death 
of either would have touched the strings of public sympathy. We 
should have felt that one great link, connecting us with former times, 
was broken; that we had lost something more, as it were, of the 
presence of the Revolution itself, and of the act of independence, 
and were driven on, by another great remove, from the days of our 
country's early distinction, to meet posterity, and to mix with the fu- 
ture. Like the mariner, whom the ocean and the winds carry along, 
till he sees the stars which have directed his course, and lighted his 
pathless way, descend, one by one, beneath the rising horizon, we 
should have felt that the stream of time had borne us onward, till 
another great luminary, whose light had cheered us, and whose guid- 
ance we had followed, had sunk away from our sight. 

But the concurrence of their death, on the anniversary of Inde- 
pendence, has naturally awakened stronger emotions. Both had 
been presidents, both had lived to great age, both were early patriots, 
and both were distinguished and ever honored by their immediate 
agency in the act of independence. It cannot but seem striking, 
and extraordinary; that these two should live to see the fiftieth year 
from the date of that act; that they should complete that year; and 
that then, on the day which had fast linked forever their own fame 
with their country's glory, the heavens should open to receive them 
both at once. As their lives themselves were the gifts of Provi- 
dence, who is not willing to recognise in their happy termination, 
as well as in their long continuance, proofs that our country, and its 
benefactors, are objects of His care? 

Adams and Jeffersox, I have said, are no more. As human 
beings, indeed, they are no more. They are no more, as in 1776, 
bold and fearless advocates of independence; no more as on subse- 
quent periods, the head of the government; no more as we have re- 
cently seen them, aged and venerable objects of admiration and 
regard. They are no more. They are dead. But how little is 
there, of the great and good, which can die! To their country they 
yet live, and live forever. They live in all that perpetuates the re- 
membrance of men on* earth; in the recorded proofs of their own 
great actions, in the offspring of their intellect, in the deep engrtived 
lines of public gratitude, and in the respect and homage of man- 
kind. They live in their example; and they live, emphatically, and 
will live in the influence which their lives and efforts, their princi- 
ples arul opinions, now exercise, and will continue to exercise, on 
the affairs of men, not only in their own country, but throughout the 
civilized world. A superior and conmianding human intellect, a 
truly great man, when Heaven vouchsafes so rare a gift, is not a 
temporary flame, burning bright for a while, and then expiring, giv- 
ing place to returning darkness. It is rather a spark of fervent 



73 

heat, as well as radiant light, with power to enkindle the common 
mass of human mind; so that when it glimmers, in its own decay, 
and finally goes out in death, no night follows, but it leaves the 
world all light, all on lire, from the potent contact of its own spirit. 
Bacon died; but the human understanding, roused, by the touch of 
his miraculous wand, to a perception of the true philosophy, and 
the just mode of inquiring after truth, has kept on its course, suc- 
cessfully and gloriously. Newton died; yet the courses of the 
spheres are still known, and they yet move on, in the orbits which 
he saw, and described for them, in the infinity of space. 

No two men now live, fellow citizens, perhaps it may be doubted, 
whether any two men have ever lived, in one age, who, more than 
those we now commemorate, have impressed their own sentiments, 
in regard to politics and government, on mankind, infused their own 
opinions more deeply into the opinions of others, or given a more 
lasting direction to the current of l^uman thought. Their work 
doth not perish with them. The tree which they assisted to plant, 
will flourish, although they water it and protect it no longer; for ii 
has struck its roots deep, it has sent them to the very centre; no 
storm, not of force to burst the orb, can overturn it; its branches 
spread wide; they stretch their protecting arms broader and broader, 
and its top is destined to reach the heavens. We are not deceived. 
There is no delusion here. No age will come, in which the Ameri- 
can Revolution will appear less than it is, one of the greatest events 
in human history. No age will come, in which it will cease to be 
seen and felt, on either continent, that a mighty step, a great ad- 
vance, not only in American affairs, but in human affairs, was made 
on the 4th of July 1776. And no age will come, we trust, so igno- 
rant or so unjust, as not to see and acknowledge the efficient agency 
of these we now honor, in producing that momentous event. 

We are not assembled, therefore, fellow citizens, as men over- 
whelmed with calamity by the sudden disruption of the ties of 
friendship or affection, dt as in despair for the Republic, by the un- 
timely blighting of its hopes. Death has not surprised us by an 
unseasonable blow. AVe have, indeed, seen the tomb close, but it 
has closed only over mature years, over long protracted public ser- 
vice, over the weakness of age, and over life itself only when the 
ends of living had been fulfilled. These suns, as they rose slowly, 
and steadily, amidst clouds and storms, in their ascendant, so they 
have not rushed from their meridian, to sink suddenly in the west. 
Like the mildness, the serenity, the continuing benignity of a sum- 
mer's day, they have gone down with slow descending, grateful, 
long lingering light; and now that they are beyond the visible mar- 
gin of the world, good omens cheer us from " the bright track of 
their fiery car! " 

There were many points of similarity in the lives and fortunes of 
these great men. They belonged to the same profession, and had pur- 
sued its studies and its practice, for unequal lengths of time indeed, 
but with diligence and effect. Both were learned and able lawyers. 
They were natives and inhabitants, respectively, of fhose two of the 
colonies, which, at the revolution, Avere the largest and most powerful, 
and which naturally had a lead in the political atlair,-. of the (inKis. 
10 G 



74 

When the colonies became, in some degree, united, by the assem- 
bling of a general congress, they were brought to act together, in 
its deliberations, not indeed at the same time, but both at early pe- 
riods. Each had already manifested his attachment to the cause of 
the country, as well as his ability to maintain it, by printed address- 
es, public speeches, extensive correspondence, and whatever other 
mode could be adopted, for the purpose of exposing the encroach- 
ments of the British parliament and animating the people to a manly 
resistance. Both were not only decided, but early friends of Inde- 
pendence. While others yet doubted, they were resolved; where 
others hesitated, they pressed forward. They were both members 
of the committee for preparing the Declaration of Independence, 
and they constituted the sub-committee, appointed by the other 
members to make the draught. They left their seats in congress, 
being called to other public employments, at periods not remote from 
each other, although one of them returned to it, afterwards, for a 
short time. Neither of them was of the assembly of great men 
which formed the present constitution, and neither was at any time 
member of congress under its provisions. Both have been public 
ministers abroad, both vice-presidents, and both presidents. These 
coincidences are now singularly crowned and completed. They 
have died, together; and they died on the anniversary of liberty. 

When many of us were last in this place, fellow citizens, it was 
on the day of that anniversary. We were met to enjoy the festivi- 
ties belonging to the occasion, and to manifest our grateful homage 
to our political fathers. 

We did not, we could not here, forget our venerable neighbour 
of Quincy. We knew that we were standing, at a time of high and 
palmy prosperity, where he had stood, in the hour of utmost peril; 
that we saw nothing but liberty and security, where he had met the 
frown of power; that we were enjoying everything, where he had 
hazarded everything; and just and" sincere plaudits rose to his name, 
from the crowds which filled this area, and hung over these gal- 
leries. He whose grateful duty it was to speak to us, on that day, 
of the virtues of our fathers had, indeed, admonished us that time 
and years were about to level his venerable frame with the dust. 
But he bade us hope, that " the sound of a nation's joy, rushing 
from our cities, ringing from our valleys, echoing from our hills, 
might yet break the silence of his aged ear; that the rising blessings 
of grateful millions might yet visit, with glad light, his decaying 
vision." Alas! that vision was then closing forever. Alas! the 
silence which was then settling on that aged ear, was an everlasting 
silence! For, lo! in thc> very moment of our festivities, his freed 
spirit ascended to God wlio gave it! Human aid and human solace 
terminate at the grave; or we would gi;iilly have borne him upward, 
on a nation's outspread hands; we would have accompanied him, 
and with the blessings of millions and the prayers of millions, com- 
mended him to the Divine favor. 

AVliile still indulging our (lioushts 'in the coincidence of the death 
of this venerable man with ihf uaaiversary of independence, we 
learn that Jetlerson, too, has fallen; and that these aged patriots, 
these illustrious fellows-laborers, had left our world together. May 



75 

not such events raise the suggestion that they are not undesigned, 
and that Heaven does so order things, as sometimes to attract strong- 
ly the attention, and excite the thoughts of men? The occurrence 
has added new interest to our anniversary and will be remembered, 
in all time to come. 

The occasion, fellow citizens, requires some account of the lives 
and services of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. This duty 
must necessarily be performed with great brevity, and in the dis- 
charge of it I shall be obliged to confine myself, principally, to 
those parts of their history and character which belonged to them as 
public men. 

John Adams was born at Quincy, then part of the ancient town 
of Braintree, on the 19th day of October (Old Style) 1735. He 
was a descendant of the Puritans, his ancestors having early emi- 
grated from England, and settled in Massachusetts. Discovering 
early a strong love of reading and of knowledge, together with marks 
of great strength and activity of mind, proper care was taken by his 
worthy father, to provide for his education. He pursued his youth- 
ful studies in Braintree, under Mr. Marsh, a teacher whose fortune 
it was that Josiah Quincy, Jr. as well as the subject of these remarks, 
should receive from him his instruction in the rudiments of classical 
literature. Having been admitted, in 1751, a member of Harvard 
College, Mr. Ada:^is was graduated, in course, in 1755; and on the 
catalogue of that Institution, his name, at the time of his death, 
was second among the living Alumni, being preceded only by that 
of the venerable Holyoke. With what degree of reputation he 
left the University, is not now precisely known. We know only 
that he was distinguished, in a class which numbered Locke and 
Hemenway among its members. Choosing the law for his profes- 
sion, he commenced and prosecuted its studies at Worcester, under 
the direction of Samuel Putnam, a gentleman whom he has himself 
described as an acute man, an able and learned lawyer, and as in 
large professional practice at that time. In 1758, he was admitted 
to the bar, and commenced business in Braintree. He is understood 
to have made his first considerable effort, or to have attained his first 
signal success, at Plymouth, on one of those occasions which fur- 
nish the earliest opportunity for distinction to many young men of 
the profession, a jury trial, and a criminal cause. His business nat- 
urally grew with his reputation, and his residence in the vicinity 
afforded the opportunity, as his growing eminence gave the power, 
of entering on the larger field of practice which the capital present- 
ed. In 1766, he removed his residence to Boston, still continuing 
his attendance on the neighbouring circuits, and not unfrequently 
called to remote parts of the Province. In 1770 his professional 
firmness was brought to a test of some severity, on the application 
of the British officers and soldiers to undertake their defence, on 
the trial of the indictments found against them on account of the 
transactions of the memorable 5th of March. He seems to have 
thought, on this occasion, that a man can no more abandon the proper 
duties of his profession, than he can abandon other duties. The 
event proved, that as he judged well for his own reputation, so he 
judged well, also, for the interest and permanent fame of his country. 



76 

The result of that trial proved, that notwithstanding the high degree 
of" excitement then existing, in consequence of the measures of the 
British government, a jury of Massachusetts would not deprive the 
most reckless enemies, even the officers of that standing army, 
quartered among them, which they so perfectly ahhorred, of any part 
of that protection which the law, in its mildest and most indulgent 
interpretation, afforded to persons accused of crimes. 

Witliout pursuing Mr. Adams's professional course further, suffice 
it to say, that on the first establishment of the judicial tribunals under 
the authority of the State, in 1776, he received an offer of the high 
and responsible station of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 
But he was destined for another and a different career. From early 
lite the bent of his mind was toward politics; a propensity, which 
the state of the times, if it did not create, doubtless very much 
strengthened. Public subjects must have occupied the thoughts 
and filled up the conversation in the circles in which he then moved; 
and the interesting questions, at that time just arising, could not but 
seize on a mind, like his, ardent, sanguine and patriotic. The letter, 
fortunately preserved, written by him at Worcester so early as the 
ll2th of October, 1755, is a proof of very comprehensive views, and 
uncommon depth of reflection, in a young man not yet quite twenty. 
In this letter he predicted the transfer of power, and the establish- 
ment of a new seat of empire in America; he predicted, also, the 
increase of population in the colonies; and anticipated their naval 
distinction, and foretold that all Europe, combined, could not subdue 
them. All this is said, not on a public occasion, or for effect, but 
in the style of sober and friendly correspondence, as the result of 
his own thoughts. " I sometimes retire," said he, at the close of 
the letter, " and laying things together form some reflections pleas- 
ing to myself The produce of one of these reveries you have read 
above."* This prognostication, so early in his own life, so early 
in the history of the country, of independence, of vast increase of 
numbers, of naval force, of such augmented power as might defy 
all Europe, is remarkable. It is more remarkable, that its author 
should live to see fulfilled to the letter, what could have seemed to 
others, at the time, but the extravagance of youthfiil fancy. His 
earliest political feelings were thus strongly American; and from 
this ardent attachment to his native soil he never departed. 

Wliile still living at Quincy, and at the age of twenty-four, Mr 
Adams was present, in this town, on the argument before the Su 

* Extract of a letter written by John Adams, dated at Worcester, Massachusetts, October 
12, 1755. 

" Soon after the Reformation, a few people came over into this new world, for coiiscience 
sake. Perhaps this apparently trivial incident may transfer the great seat of empire into 
America. It looks likely to me; for, if we can remove the tnrbulcnt Gallics, om- people, 
acconliTifj to tlie exactest computations, will in imother centiii-y, become more numerous 
than England itself. SlionM this be the case, since we have, I may say, all the naval stores 
of tile nation in our hands, it will be easy to (il)tain a mastery of tiic seas; and then the uni- 
ted firco of all Europe will not be able to subdue us. The only way to keep us from setting 
up for ourselves is to disnnit(; us. 

" I5e not sur|)rised Uiat I am turned ])olitician. Tids wli(de town is immersed in jiolitics. 
The interests of nations, and all tlu; dira of war, make tile subject of every conversation. 
I sit and hear, an'l after haviri'j; been led throui^h a maze of saije observations, I siimetiuics 
retire, and laving thini^s togcLlicr, form some lellectioiis pleasing to myself. 'J'he produce 
of one of Uiesu reveries you have reuil above." 



77 

preme Court respecting JVr-iis of Assistance^ and heard the celebrated 
and patriotic speech of James Otis. Unquestionably, that was a 
masterly performance. No flighty declamation about liberty, no 
superficial discussion of popular topics, it was a learned, penetrating, 
convincing, constitutional argument, expressed in a strain of high and 
resolute patriotism. He grasped the question, then pending between 
England and her Colonies, with the strength of a lion; and if he 
sometimes sported, it was only because the lion himself is some- 
times playful. Its success appears to have been as great as its mer- 
its, and its impression was widely felt. Mr. Adams himself seems 
never to have lost the feeling it produced, and to have entertained 
constantly the fullest conviction of its important effects. " I do say," 
he observes, " in the most solemn manner, that Mr. Otis's Oration 
against Writs of Assistance, breathed into this nation the breatli of 
life." 

In 1765 Mr. Adams laid before the public, what I suppose to be 
his first printed performance, except essays for the periodical press, 
a Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law. The object of this 
work was to show that our New England ancestors, in consenting to 
exile themselves from their native land, were actuated, mainly, by 
the desire of delivering themselves from the power of the hierarchy, 
and from the monarchical and aristocratical political systems of the 
other continent; and to make this truth bear, with effect, on the pol- 
itics of the times. Its tone is uncommonly bold and animated, for 
that perfod. He calls on the people, not only to defend, but to 
study and understand their rights and privileges; urges earnestly the 
necessity of diffusing general knowledge, invokes the clergy and the 
bar, the colleges and academies, and all others who have the ability 
and the means, to expose the insidious designs of arbitrary power, 
to resist its approaches, and to be persuaded that there is a settled 
design on foot to enslave all America. " Be it remembered," says 
the author, " that liberty must, at all hazards, be supported. We 
have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, 
our fathers have earned it, and bought it for us, at the expense 
of their ease, their estate, their pleasure and their blood. And lib- 
erty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge .among the 
people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to know- 
ledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given 
them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they 
have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible right to that 
most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the character 
and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, 
agents, and trustees of the people; and if the cause, the interest and 
trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trilled away, the people 
have a right to revoke the authority, that they themselves have 
deputed, and to constitute other and better agents, attorneys and 
trustees." 

The citizens of this town conferred on Mr. Adams his first politi- 
cal distinction, and clothed him with his first political trust, by 
electing him one of their representatives, in 1770. Before this 
time he had become extensively known throiighout the [Trovince, 
as well by the part he had acted in relation to public affairs, as 



78 

by the exercise of his professional ability. He was among those 
who took the deepest interest in the controversy with England, 
and whether in or out of the Legislature, his time and talents were 
alike devoted to the cause. In the years 1773 and 1774 he was 
chosen a counsellor, by the members of the General Court, but re- 
jected by Governor Hutchinson, in the former of those years, and 
by Governor Gage in the latter. 

The time was now at hand, however, when the affairs of the col- 
onies urgently demanded united councils. An open rupture with 
the parent State appeared inevitable, and it was but the dictate of 
prudence, that those who were united by a common interest and a 
conunon danger, should protect that interest and guard against that 
danger, by united efforts. A general Congress of Delegates from 
all the colonies, having been proposed and agreed to, the House of 
Representatives, on the 17th of June 1774, elected James Bowdoix, 
Thomas Cushing, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Robert 
Treat Paine, delegates from ]\Iassachusetts. This appointment 
was made at Salem, where the General Court had been convened 
by Governor Gage, in the last hour of the existence of a House 
of Representatives under the provincial Charter. While engaged 
in this important business, the governor having been informed of 
what was passing, sent liis secretary with a message dissolving 'the 
General Court. The secretary finding the door locked, directed 
the messenger to go in and inform the speaker that the secretary 
was at the door with a message from the governor. The messen- 
ger returned, and informed the secretary that the oi'ders of the 
House were that the doors should be kept fast; whereupon the sec- 
retary soon after read a proclamation, dissolving the General Court 
upon the stairs. Thus terminated, forever, the actual exercise of 
the political power of England in or over Massaclmsetts. Tiie 
four last named delegates accepted their appointments, and took 
their seats in Congress, the first day of its meeting, September 5, 
1774, in Philadelphia. 

The proceedings of the first Congress are well known, and have 
been universally admired. It is in vain that we would look for su- 
perior proofs of wisdom, talent, and patriotism. Lord Chatham 
said, that for himself, he must declare, that he had studied and ad- 
mired the free states of antiquity, the master states of tlie world, 
but that for solidity of reasoning, force of sagacity, and wisdom of 
conclusion, no body of men could stand in preference to this Con- 
gress. It is hardly inferior praise to say, that no production of that 
great man himself can be pronounced superior to several of the pa- 
pers published as the proceedings of this most able, most firm, most 
patriotic assembly. There is, indeed, nothing superior to them in 
the range of political disquisition. They not only embrace, illus- 
trate, and enforce everything which political philosophy, the love 
of liberty, and the spirit of free inquiry had antecedently produced, 
but they add new and striking views of their own, and apply the 
whole, with irresistible force, in support of the cause which had 
drawn them together. 

Mr. Adams was a constant attendant on the deliberations of tliis 
body, and bore an active part in its important measures. He was 



79 

of the cornrnitlce to state the riglits of the colonies, and of that also 
which ie[)orted the address to the king. 

As it was in the continental Congress, fellow citizens, that those 
whose deaths have given rise to this occasion, were first i)r()Ugiit 
together, and called on to unite their industry and their ability, in 
the service of the country, let us now turn to the other of these 
distinguished men, and take a brief notice of his life, up to the 
period when he appeared within the walls of Congress. 

TiioiNiAS Jeffersox, descended from ancestors who had been set- 
tled in Virginia for some generations, was horn near tiie spot on 
which he died, in the county of Albemarle, on the 2d of Ajjril, (Old 
Style,) 1743. His youthful studies were pursued in the neighbour- 
hood of his father's residence, until he was removed to the college 
of William and Mary, the highest honors of which he in due time 
received. Having lefl the college with reputation, he applied him- 
self to the study of the law, under the tuition of George Wythe, 
one of the highest judicial names of which that State can hoast. 
At an early age he was elected a member of the Legislature, in 
which he had no sooner appeared than he distinguished himself, by 
knowledge, capacity, and promptitude. 

Mr. Jefferson appears to have been imhued with an early love of 
letters and science, and to have cherished a strong disposition to 
pursue these ol)jects. To the physical sciences, especially, and to 
ancient classic literature, he is understood to have had a warm at- 
tachment, and never entirely to have lost sight of them, in the midst 
of the busiest occupations. But the times were times for action, 
rather than for contemplation. The country was to be defended, 
and to he saved, before it could be enjoyed. Philosopiiic leisure 
and literary pursuits, and even the objects of professional attention, 
were all necessarily postponed to the urgent calls of the public ser- 
vice. The exigency of the country made the same demand on Mr. 
Jefferson that it made on others who had the abihty and the dispo- 
sition to serve it; and he obeyed the call; thinking and feeling, in 
this respect, with the great Roman orator; Quis cnim est tarn cupi- 
dus in perspicienda cos^iwsccndaque rerum nahtra, vt, si ei trnctanti con- 
itmplanliiiue res cognilione diguissimas subilu sit allcduia paicvlmn dis- 
crimcnque pcdrice, cui subvenire opitidariijue possit, non ilia omnia re- 
limjnnt utque abjiciat, etium si dinunicrare se stcllus, aut metifi mundi 
magmtudinem posse arbitretur'? 

Entering, with all his heart, into the cause of liberty, his ability, 
patiiotism, and power with the pen naturally drew u|)(>u him a large 
participation in the most important concerns. Wiierever he was, 
there was found a soul devoted to the cause, power to defend and 
maintain it, and willingness to incur all its hazards. In 1774 he 
published a Summary View of the Rights of British America, a 
valuable production among those intended to show the dangers which 
threatened the liberties of the country, and to encourage the people 
in their defence. In June 1775 he was elected a member of the 
Continental Congress, as successor to Peyton RANoor.PH, who had 
retired on account of ill health, and took his seat in that body on 
the 21st of the same month. 



80 

And now, fellow citizens, without pursuing the biography of these 
illustrious men further, for the present, let us turn our attention to 
the most prominent act of their lives, their participation in the 
DECLARATION of INDEPENDENCE. 

Preparatory to the introduction of that important measure, a com- 
mittee, at the head of which was Mr. Adams, had reported a reso- 
lution, which Congress adopted the 10th of May, recommending, in 
substance, to all the colonies Avhich had not already established gov- 
ernments suited to the exigencies of their affairs, to adopt such gov- 
ernment, as would, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best 
conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, 
and America in general. 

This significant vote was soon followed by the direct proposition, 
which Richard Hemuy Lee had the honor to submit to Congress, 
by resolution, on the 7th day of June. The published journal does 
not expressly state it, but there is no doubt, I suppose, that this 
resolution was in the same words, when originally submitted by Mr. 
Lee, as when finally passed. Having been discussed, on Saturday 
the 8th, and Monday the 10th of June, this resolution was on the 
last mentioned day postponed, for further consideration, to the first 
day of July; and, at the same time it was voted, that a committee be 
appointed to prepare a declaration, to the effect of the resolution. 
This committee was elected by ballot, on the following day, and 
consisted of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, 
Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston. 

It is usual, when committees are elected by ballot, that their 
members are arranged, in order, according to the number of votes 
which each has received. Mr. Jefferson, therefore, had received 
the highest, and Mr. Adams the next highest number of votes. 
The difference is said to have been but of a single vote. Mr. Jef- 
ferson and Mr. Adams, standing thus at the head of the conwiittee, 
were requested, by the other members, to act as a sub-committee, 
to prepare the draught; and Mr. Jefferson drew up the paper. The 
original draught, as brought by him from his study, and submitted to 
the other members of the committee, with interlineations in the hand- 
writing of Dr. Franklin, and others in that of Mr. Adams, was in 
Mr. Jefferson's possession at the time of his death. The merit of 
this paper is Mr. Jeflerson's. Some changes were made in it, on 
the suggestion of other members of the committee, and others by 
Congress while it was under discussion. But none of them altered 
the tone, the frame, the arrangement, or the general character of 
the instrument. As a composition, the declaration is Mr. Jeffer- 
son's. It is the production of his mind, and the high honor of it 
belongs to him, clearly and absolutely. 

It has sometimes been said, as if it were a derogation from the 
merits of this paper, that it contains nothing new; that it only states 
grounds of proceeding, and presses topics of argument, which had 
often been stated and pressed before. But it was not the object of 
the declaration to produce anything new. It was not to invent 
reasons for independence, but to state those which governed the 
Confrress. For great and sufficient causes, it was projjosed to de- 
clare independence; and the proper business of the paper to be 



81 

drawn, was to set forth those causes, and justify the authors of the 
measure, in any event of fortune, to the country, and to posterity. 
The cause of American independence, moreover, was now to be 
presented to the world, in such manner, if it might so be, as to en- 
gage its sympathy, to command its respect, to attract its admiration; 
and in an assembly of most able and distinguished men, Thomas 
Jefferson had the high honor of being the selected advocate of 
this cause. To say that he performed his great work well, would 
be doing him injustice. To say that he did excellently well, adnu- 
rably well, would be inadequate and halting praise. Let us rather 
say, that he so discharged the duty assigned him, that all Americans 
may well rejoice that the work of drawing the title deed of then 
liberties devolved on his hands. 

With all its merits, there are those who have thought that there 
was one thing in the declaration to be regretted; and that is, the 
asperity and apparent anger with which it speaks of the person of 
the king; the industrious ability with which it accumulates and 
charges'^upon him, all the injuries which the colonies had suffered 
from'^the mother country. Possibly some degree of injustice, now 
or hereafter, at home or abroad, may be done to the character of 
Mr. Jefferson, if this part of the declaration be not placed in its 
proper light. Anger or resentment, certainly, much less personal 
reproach^and invective, could not properly find place, in a composi- 
tion of such high dignity, and of such lofty and permanent char- 
acter. 

A single reflection on the original ground of dispute, between 
England and the colonies, is sufticient to remove any unfavorable 
impression, in this respect. 

The inhabitants of all the colonies, while colonies, admitted them- 
selves bound by their allegiance to the king; but they disclaimed, 
altogether, the authority of parliament; holding themselves, in this 
respect, to resemble the condition of Scotland and Ireland, before 
the respective unions of those kingdoms with England, when they 
acknowledged allegiance to the same king, but each had its separate 
legislature. The tie, therefore, which our revolution was to break, 
did not subsist between us and the British parliament, or between 
us and the British government, in the aggregate; but directly be- 
tween us and the king himself The colonies had never admitted 
themselves subject to parUament. That was precisely the point of 
the original controversy. They had uniformly denied that parlia- 
ment had authority to make laws for them. There was, therefore, 
no subjection to parliament to be thrown off. * But allegiance to 
the king did exist, and had been uniibrmly acknowledged; and down 

* This question, of the power of parliament over the colonies, was discussed with singu- 
lar ability bv Gov. Hutchinson on the one side, and the house of representatives of Mas- 
sachusetts on the other, in 1773. The argument of the House is in the form of an answer 
to tlie o-overnor's message, and was reported by Mr. Samuel Adams, Mr. Hancock, IMr, 
Hawley, Mr. Bowers, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Foster, Mv. Piiillips, and Mr. Thayer. As the 
power of the parliament had been acknowledged, so far at least as to a fleet us by laws of 
trade, it was not easy to settle the line of distinction. It was thought however to bo ^ery 
clear, that the charters of the colonies had exempted them from the general legislation o» 
the British pailiament. See Massachusetts State Papers, p. 351. 

11 



82 

to 1775 the most solemn assurances had been given that it was not 
intended to break that allegiance, or to throw it off. Thcrelbrc, as 
the direct object, and only effect of the declaration, according to the 
principles on which the controversy had been maintained, on our part, 
was to sever the tie of allegiance which bound us to the king, it was 
properly and necessarily founded on acts of the crown itself, as its 
justifying causes. Parliament is not so much as mentioned, in the 
whole instrument. When odious and oppressive acts are referred 
to, it is done by charging the king with confederating, with others, 
" in pretended acts of legislation;" the object being, constantly, to 
hold the king himself directly responsible for those measures which 
were the grounds of separation. Even the precedent of the Eng- 
lish revolution was not overlooked, and in this case, as well as in 
that, occasion was found to say that the king had abdicated the gov- 
ernment. Consistency with the principles upon which resistance 
began, and with all the previous state papers issued by Congress, 
required that the declaration should be bottomed on the misgovern- 
ment of the king; and therefore it was properly framed with that 
aim and to that end. The king was known, indeed, to have acted, 
as in other cases, by his ministers, and with his parliament; but as 
our ancestors had never admitted themselves subject either to min- 
isters or to parliament, there were no reasons to be given for now 
refusing obedience to their authority. This clear and obvious ne- 
cessity of founding the declaration on the misconduct of the king 
himself, gives to that instrument its, personal application, and its 
character of direct and pointed accusation. 

The declaration having been reported to Congress, by the com- 
mittee, the resolution itself was taken up and debated on the first 
day of July, and again on the second, on which last day it was 
agreed to and adopted, in these words. 

Resolved, That these united colonies are, and of right ought 

TO BE, free and INDEPENDENT STATES; THAT THEY ARE ABSOLVED 
FROM ALL ALLEGIANCE TO THE BRITISH CROWN, AND THAT ALL POLIT- 
ICAL CONNEXION BETWEEN THEM, AND THE STATE OF GREAT BRITAIN 
IS, AND OUGHT TO BE, TOTALLY DISSOLVED. 

Having thus passed the main resolution. Congress proceeded to 
consider the reported draught of the declaration. It was discussed on 
the second, and third, and fourth days of the month, in committee 
of the whole; and on the last of those days, being reported from 
that committee, it received the final approbation and sanction of 
Congress. It was ordered, at the same time, that copies be sent to 
the several States, and that it be proclaimed at the head of the ar- 
my. The declaration thus published, did not bear the names of the 
members, for as yet it had not been signed by them. It was au- 
thenticated, like other papers of the Congress, by the signatures of 
the president and secretary. On the 19th of July, as appears by 
the secret journal, Congress ^'Resolved, that the declaration, passed 
on the fourth, be fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and 
style of 'The unanimous declaration of the Thirteen United 
States of America;' and that the same, when engrossed, be sign- 
ed by every member of Congress." And on the second day of 
August, following, " the declaration, being engrossed and compared 



83 • 

at the table, was signed by the members." So that it happens, fel 
low citizens, that we pay these honors to their memory, on the an 
niversary of that day, on which these great men actually signed 
their names to the declaration. The declaration was thus made, 
that is, it passed, and was adopted, as an act of Congress, on the 
fourth of July; it was then signed and certified by the president and 
secretary, like other acts. The fourth of July, therefore, is the 
ANNIVERSARY OF THE DECLARATION. But the signatures of the 
members present were made to it, being then engrossed on parch- 
ment, on the second day of August. Absent members afterwards 
signed, as they came in; and indeed it bears the names of some 
who were not chosen members of Congress, until after the fourth 
of July, The interest belonging to the subject, will be sufficient, 
I hope, to justify these details. 

The Congress of the Revolution, fellow citizens, sat with closed 
doors, and no report of its debates was ever taken. The discus- 
sion, therefore, which accompanied this great measure, has never 
been preserved, except in memory, and by tradition. But it is, I 
believe, doing no injustice to others, to say, that the general opin- 
ion was, and uniformly has been, that in debate, on the side of in- 
dependence, John Adams had no equal. The great author of the 
declaration himself has expressed that opinion uniformly and strong- 
ly. " John Adams," said he, in the hearing of him who has now 
the honor to address you, " John Adams was our colossus on the 
floor. Not graceful, not elegant, not always fluent, in his public 
addresses, he yet came out with a power, both of thought and of 
expression, which moved us from our seats." 

For the part which he was here to perform, Mr. Adams doubtless 
was eminently fitted. He possessed a bold spirit, which disregarded 
danger, and a sanguine reliance on the goodness of the cause, and 
the virtues of the people, which led him to overlook all obstacles. 
His character, too, had been formed in troubled times. He had 
been rocked in the early storms of the controversy, and had acquir- 
ed a decision and a hardihood, proportioned to the severity of the 
discipline which he had undergone. 

He not only loved the American cause devoutly, but had studied 
and understood it. It was all familiar to him. He had tried his 
powers, on the questions which it involved, often, and in various 
ways; and had brought to their consideration whatever of argument 
or illustration the history of his own country, the history of England, 
or the stores of ancient or of legal learning could furnish. Every 
grievance, enumerated in the long catalogue of the declaration, had 
been the subject of his discussion, and the object of his remonstrance 
and reproi)ation. From 1760, the colonies, the rights of the colonies, 
the liberties of the colonies, and the wrongs inflicted on the colonies, 
had engaged his constant attention; and it has surprised those, who 
have had ihe opportunity of observing, with what fvill remembrance, 
and with what prompt recollection, he could refer, in his extreme 
old age, to every act of Parliament affecting the colonies, distin- 
guishing and stating their respective titles, sections, and provisions; 
and to all the colonial memorials, remonstrances, and petitions, with 
whatever el.se belonged to the intimate and exact history ol" the 



84 

times from that year to 1775. It was in his own judgment, between 
these years, that the American people came to a full understanding 
and thorough knowledge of their rights, and to a fixed resolution 
of maintaining them; and bearing himself an active part in all im- 
portant transactions, the controversy with England being then, in 
effect, the business of his life, facts, dates and particulars made an 
impression which was never effaced. He was prepared, therefore, 
by education and discipline, as well as by natural talent and natural 
temperament, for the part which he was now to act. 

The eloquence of Mr. Adams resembled his general character, 
and formed, indeed, a part of it. It was bold, manly, and energetic; 
and such the crisis required. When public bodies are to be addres- 
sed on momentous occasions, when great interests are at stake, and 
strong passions excited, nothing is valuable, in speech, farther than 
it is connected with high intellectual and moral endowments. Clear- 
ness, force, and earnestness are the qualities which produce con- 
viction. True eloquence, indeed, does not consist in speech. It 
cannot be brought from far. Labor and learning may toil lor it, but 
they will toil in vain. Words and phrases may be marshalled in 
every way, but they cannot compass it. It must exist in the man, 
in the subject, and in the occasion. Affected passion, intense ex- 
pression, the pomp of declamation, all may aspire after it — they can- 
not reach it. It comes, if it come at all, like the outbreaking of a 
fountain from the earth, or the bursting forth of volcanic fires, with 
spontaneous, original, native force. The graces taught in the scliools, 
the costly ornaments, and studied contrivances of speech, shock and 
disgust men, when their own lives, and tlie fate of their wives, their 
children, and their country, hang on the decision of the hour. Then 
words have lost their power, rhetoric is vain, and all elaborate ora- 
tory contemptible. Even genius itself then feels rebuked, and sub- 
dued, as in the presence of higher qualities. Then, patriotism is 
eloquent; then, self-devotion is eloquent. The clear conception, 
outrunning the deductions of logic, the high purpose, the firm re- 
solve, the dauntless spirit, speaking on the tongue, beaming from 
the eye, informing every feature, and urging the whole man onward, 
right onward to his object — this, this is eloquence; or rather it is 
something greater and higher than all eloquence, it is action, noble, 
sublime, godlike action. 

In July 1776, the controversy had passed the stage of argument. 
An appeal had been made to force, and opposing armies were in the 
field. Congress, then, was to decide whether the tie which had so 
long bound us to the parent state, was to be severed at once, and 
severed forever. All the colonies had signified their resohition to 
abide by this decision, and the people looked for it with the most in- 
tense anxiety. And surely, fellow citizens, never, never were men 
called to a more important political deliberation. If we contemplate 
it from the point where they then stood, no question could be more 
full of interest; if we look at it now, and judge of its importance by 
its effects, it appears in still greater magnitude. 

Let us, then, bring before us the assembly, which was about to 
decide a question thus big with the fate of empire. Let us open 
their doors, and look in upon their deliherations. Let us survey the 



85 

anxious and care-worn countenances, let us hear the firm-toned 
voices, of this band of patriots. 

Hancock presides over the solemn sitting; and one of those not 
yet prepared to pronounce for absolute independence, is on the floor, 
and is urging his reasons for dissenting from the declaration. 

''Let us pause! This step, once taken, cannot be retraced. 
This resolution, once passed, will cut off all hope of reconciliation. 
If success attend the arms of England, we shall then be no longer 
colonies, with charters, and with privileges; these will all be forfeit- 
ed by this act; and we shall be in tiie condition of other conquered 
people, at the mercy of the conquerors. For ourselves, we may be 
ready to run the hazard; but are we ready to carry the country to 
that length? Is success so probable as to justify it.'' Where is the 
military, where the naval power, by which we are to resist the whole 
strength of the arm of England, for she will exert that strength to 
the utmost ? Can we rely on the constancy and perseverance of the 
people? or will they not act, as the people of other countries have 
acted, and, wearied with a long war, submit, in the end, to a worse 
oppression? While we stand on our old ground, and insist on redress 
of grievances, we know we are right, and are not answerable for con- 
sequences. Nothing, then, can be imputable to us. But if we now 
change our object, carry our pretensions further, and set up for abso- 
lute independence, we shall lose the sympathy of mankind. We 
shall no longer be defending what we possess, but struggling for 
something which we never did possess, and which we have solemnly 
and unitbrmly disclaimed all intention of pursuing, from the very out- 
set of the troubles. Abandoning thus our old ground, of resistance 
only to arbitrary acts of oppression, the nations will believe the 
whole to have been mere pretence, and they will look on us, not as 
injured, but as ambitious, subjects. I shudder, before this responsi- 
bility. It will be on us, if relinquishing the ground we have stood 
on so long, and stood on so safely, we now proclaim independence, 
and carry on the war for that object, while these cities burn, these 
pleasant fields whiten and bleach with the bones of their owners, and 
these streams run blood. It will be upon us, it will be upon us, if 
failing to maintain this unseasonable and ill-judged declaration, a 
sterner despotism, maintained by military power, shall be established 
over our posterity, when we ourselves, given up by an exhausted, 
a harassed, a misled people, shall have expiated our rashness and 
atoned for our presumption, on the scaffold." 

It was for Mr. Adams to reply to arguments like these. We 
know his opinions, and we know his character. He would com- 
mence with his accustomed directness and earnestness. 

" Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand, 
and my heart, to this vote. It is true, indeed, that in the beginning, 
we aimed not at independence. But there's a Divinity which siiapcs 
our ends. The injustice of England has driven us to arms; and, 
blinded to her own interest for our good, she has obstinately persis- 
ted, till independence is now within our grasp. We have but to 
reach forth to it, and it is ours. Why then should we defer the 
declaration? Is any man so weak as now to hope for a reconcilia- 
tion with England, which shall leave either safety to the country 

H 



86 

and its liberties, or safety to his own life, and his own honor? Are 
not you, sir, who sit in that cluiir, is not he, our venerable colleague 
near you. are you not both already the proscribed and predestined 
objects of punishment and of vengeance? Cut oil" from all hope of 
royal clemency, what are you, what can you be, while the power 
of England remains, but outlaws? If we postpone independence, 
do we mean to carry on, or to give up, the war? Do we mean to 
submit to the measures of parliament, Boston port-bill and all? Do 
we mean to submit, and consent that we ourselves shall be ground 
to powder, and our country and its rights trodden down in the dust? 
I know we do not mean to submit. We never shall submit. Do we 
intend to violate that most solemn obligation ever entered into by 
men, that plighting, before God, of our sacred honor to Washington, 
when putting him forth to incur the dangers of war, as well as the 
political hazards of the times, we promised to adhere to him, in every 
extremity, with our fortunes and our lives ? I know there is not a man 
here, who would not rather see a general conflagration sweep over the 
land, or an earthquake sink it, than one jot or tittle of that plighted 
faith fall to the ground. For myself, having, twelve months ago, in 
this place, moved you, that George Washington be appointed com- 
mander of the forces, raised or to be raised, for defence of American 
liberty, may my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue 
cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I hesitate or waver, in the sup- 
port I give him. The war, then, must go on. We must fight it 
through. And if the war must go on, why put off longer the Dec- 
laration of Independence? That measure will strengthen us. It 
will give us character abroad. The nations will then treat with us, 
which they never can do while we acknowledge ourselves subjects, 
in arms against our sovereign. Nay I maintain that England, her- 
self, will sooner treat for peace with us on the footing of Indepen- 
dence, than consent, by repealing her acts, to acknowledge that her 
whole conduct towards us has been a course of injustice and op- 
pression. Her pride will be less wounded, by submitting to that 
course of things which now predestinates our independence, than 
by yielding the points in controversy to her rebellious subjects. 
The former she would regard as the result of fortune; the latter she 
would feel as her own deep disgrace. Why then, why then, sir, do 
we not as soon as possible, change this from a civil to a national war? 
And since we must fight it through, why not put ourselves in a state 
to enjoy all the benefits of victory, if we gain the victory ? 

" if we fail, it can be no worse for us. But we shall not fail. The 
cause will raise up armies; the cause will create navies. The peo- 
ple, the people, if we are true to them, will carry us, and will carry 
themselves, gloriously, through this struggle. I care not how fickle 
other people have been found. I know the people of these colonies, 
and I know that resistance to British aggression is deep and settled 
in their hearts and cannot be eradicated. Every colony, indeed, has 
expressed its willingness to follow, if we but take the lead. Sir, the 
declaration will inspire the people with increased courage. Instead 
of a long and bloody war for restoration of privileges, for redress of 
grievances, for chartered immunities, held under a^ British king, set 
before them the glorious object of entire independence, and it will 



87 

breathe into them anew the breath of Hfe. Read this declaration at 
the head of the army; every sword will be drawn from its scabbard, 
and the solemn vow uttered, to maintain it, or fo perish on the bed 
of honor. Publish it from the pulpit; religion will approve it, and 
the love of religious liberty will cling round it, resolved to stand with 
it, or fall with it. Send it to the public halls; proclaim it there; let 
them hear it, who heard the first roar of the enemy's cannon; let 
them see it, who saw their brothers arid their sons fall on the field of 
Bunkerhill, and in the streets of Lexington and Concord, and the 
very walls will cry out in its support. 

" Sir, I know the uncertainty of human affairs, but I see, I see 
clearly, through this day's business. You and I, indeed, may rue 
it. We may not live to the time, when this declaration shall be made 
good. We may die; die, colonists; die, slaves; die, it may be, igno- 
miniously and on the scaffold. Be it so. Be it so. If it be the 
pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering 
of my life, the victim shall be ready, at the appointed hour of sacri- 
fice, come when that hour may. But while I do live, let me have a 
country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country. 
" But whatever may be our fate, be assured, be assured, that this 
declaration will stand. It may cost treasure, and it may cost blood; 
but it will stand, and it will richly compensate for both. Through 
the thick gloom of the present, I see the brightness of the future, 
as the sun in heaven. We shall make this a glorious, an immortal 
day. When we are in our graves, our children will honor it. They 
will celebrate it, with thanksgiving, with festivity, with bonfires, and 
illuminations. On its annual return they will shed tears, copious, 
gushing tears, not of subjection and slavery, not of agony and dis- 
tress, but of exultation, of gratitude, and of joy. Sir, before God, 
I believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure^ 
and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and 
all that I hope, in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it; 
and I leave off", as I begun, that live or die, survive or perish, I am 
for the declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing 
of God it shall be my dying sentiment; independence, noiv; and in- 
dependence FOREVER." 

And so that day shall be honored, illustrious prophet and patriot! 
so that day shall be honored, and as often as it returns, thy renown 
shall come along with it, and the glory of thy life, like the day of thy 
death, shall not fail from the remembrance of men. 

It would be unjust, fellow citizens, on this occasion, while we 
express our veneration for him who is the immediate subject of these 
remarks, were we to omit a most respectful, affectionate, and grate- 
ful mention of those other great men, his colleagues, who stood 
with him, and with the same spirit, the same devotion, took part in 
the interesting transaction. Hancock, the proscribed Hancock, 
exiled from his home by a military governor, cut off", by proclama- 
tion, from the mercy of the crown, Heaven reserved, for him, the 
distinguished honor of putting this great question to the vote, and 
of writing his own name first, and most consj)icuously, on tliat 
parchment which spoke defiance to the power of the crown of Eng- 
land. There, too, is the name of that otlier proscribed patriot. 



88 

Samuel Adams; a man who hungered and thirsted for the indepen 
dence of his country; wlio thought the declaration hahed and 
lingered, heing himself not only ready, but eager, for it, long before 
it was proposed; a man of tiie deepest sagacity, the clearest fore- 
sight, and the jjrofoundcst judgment in men. And there is Geury, 
himself among tiic earliest and the foremost of the patriots, found, 
when the battle of Lexington summoned them to conunon councils, 
by the side of Warren; a man who lived to serve his country at 
home and abroad, and to die in the second place in the government 
There, too, is the inflexible, the upright, the Sjiartan character, 
Robert Treat Paine. He, also, lived to serve Im country through 
the struggle, and then withdrew from her councils, only that he 
might give his labors and his life to his native State, in another re- 
lation. These names, fellow citizens, are the treasures of the com- 
monwealth; and they are treasures which grow brighter by time. 

It is now necessary to resume, and to finish with great brevity, 
the notice of the lives of those, whose virtues and services we have 
met to commemorate. 

Mr. Ada3is remained in Congress from its first meeting, till Nov- 
ember 1777, when he was appointed minister to France. He pro- 
ceeded on that service, in the February following, embarking in the 
Boston frigate, on the shore of his native town, at the foot of Mount 
Wolluston. The year following, he was appointed commissioner to 
treat of peace with England. Returning to the United States, he 
was a delegate from Braintree in the convention for framing the 
constitution of this commonwealth, in 1780. At the latter end of 
the same year, he again went abroad, in the diplomatic service of 
the country, and was emplo^-ed at various courts, and occupied with 
various negotiations, until 1788 The ])articulars of these interest- 
ing and important services this occasion does not allow time to re- 
late. In 1182 he concluded our first treaty with Holland. His 
negotiations with that republic, his efforts to persuade the States- 
General to recognise our independence, his incessant and indefati- 
gable exertions to represent the American cause favorably, on the 
Continent, and to counteract the designs of hs enemies, open and 
secret; and his successful undertaking to obtain loans, on the credit 
of a nation yet new and unknown, are among his most arduous, 
most useful, most honorable services. It was his fortune to bear a 
part in the negotiation for peace with England, and in something 
more than six years from the declaration which he had so strenuous 
ly supported, he had the satisfaction to see the minister plenipoten- 
tiary of the crown subscribe to the instrument which declared, that 
his "" Britanic Majesty acknowledged the United States to be free, 
sovereign, and independent." In these important transactions, Mr. 
Adams's conduct received the marked approbation of Congress, and 
of the country. 

While abroad, in 1787, he published his Defence of the American 
Constitutions; a work of merit, and ability, though composed with 
haste, on the spur of a particular occasion, in the midst of other 
occupations, and under circumstances not admitting of careful revi- 
.siun. The inunediatc object of the work was to counteract the 
weight of opinions advanced by several popular European writers 



89 

of that day, Mr. Turgot, the Abbe de Mably, and Dr. Price, at a 
time when the people of the United States were employed in forming 
and revising their systems of government. 

Returning to the United States in 1788, he found the new gov- 
ernment about going into operation, and was himself elected the 
first Vice-President, a situation which he filled with reputation for 
eight years, at the expiration of which he was raised to the Presi- 
dential chair, as immediate successor to the immortal Washington. 
In this high station he was succeeded by Mr. Jefferson, after a 
memorable controversy, between their respective friends, in 1801; 
and from that period his manner of life has been known to all who 
hear me. He has lived, for five and twenty years, with every en- 
joyment that could render old age happy. Not inattentive to the 
occurrences of the times, political cares have yet not materially, or 
for any long time, disturbed his repose. In 1820 he acted as elector 
of President and Vice-President, and in the same year we saw him, 
then at the age of eighty-five, a member of the convention of this 
CommonweaUh, called to revise the constitution. Forty years be- 
fore, he had been one of those who formed that Constitution; and 
he had now the pleasure of witnessing that there was little which 
the people desired to change. Possessing all his faculties to the 
end of his long life, with an unabated love of reading and contem- 
plation, in the centre of interesting circles of friendship and affec- 
tion, he was blessed, in his retirement, with whatever of repose and 
felicity, the condition of man allows. He had, also, other enjoy- 
ments. He saw around him that prosperity and general happiness, 
which had been the object of his public cares and labors. No man 
ever beheld more clearly, and tor a longer time, the great and bene- 
ficial effects of the services rendered by himself to his country. 
That liberty, which he so early defended, that independence of 
which he was so able an advocate and supporter, he saw, we trust, 
firmly and securely established. The population of the country 
thickened around him faster, and extended wider, than his own san- 
guine predictions had anticipated; and the wealth, respectability, 
and power of the nation sprang up to a magnitude, which it is quite 
impossible he could have expected to witness, in his day. He lived, 
also, to behold those principles of civil freedom, which had been 
developed, established, and pratically applied in America, attract 
attention, command respect, and a\Vaken imitation, in other regions 
of the globe: and well might, and well did he, exclaim, "Where 
will the consequences of the American Revolution end ! " 

If anything yet remain to fill this cup of happiness, let it be ad- 
ded, that he lived to see a great and intelligent people bestow the 
highest honor in their gifl, where he had bestowed his own kindest 
parental affections, and lodged his fondest hopes. Thus honored 
in life, thus happy at death, he saw the jubilee, and he died; and 
with the last prayers which trembled on his lips, was the fervent 
suppHcation for his country, " independence forever." » 

Mr. Jefferson, having been occupied m the years 1778 and 1779, 
in the important service-of revising the laws of Virginia, was elect- 
ed governor of that State, as successor to Patrick Henry, and 
held the situation when the State was invaded by the British arms 
12 H* 



90 

In 1781 he published his Notes on Virginia, a work which attracted 
attention in Europe as well as America, dispelled many misconcep- 
tions respecting this Continent, and gave its author a place among 
men distmguished for science. In November 1783, he again took 
his seat in the Continental Congress, but in the May following was 
appointed Minister Plenipotentiary, to act abroad, in the negotiation 
of commercial treaties, with Dr. Franklin and Mr. Adams. He 
proceeded to France, in execution of this mission, embarking at 
Boston; and that was the only occasion on which he ever visited this 
place. In 1785 he was appointed minister to France, the duties 
of which situation he continued to perform, until October 1789, 
when he obtained leave to retire, just on the eve of that tremendous 
Revolution which has so much agitated the world, in our times. 
Mr. Jefferson's discharge of his diplomatic duties was marked by 
great ability, diligence, and patriotism; and while he resided at Paris, 
in one of the most interesting periods, his character for intelligence, 
his love of knowledge, and of the society of learned men, distin- 
guished him in the highest circles of the French capital. No court 
in Europe had, at that time, in Paris, a representative commanding 
or enjoying higher regard, for political knowledge or for general 
attainment, than the minister of this then hifant republic. Imme- 
diately on his return to his native country, at the organization of 
the government under the present Constitution, his talents and ex- 
perience recommended him to President Washington, for the first 
olHce in his gift. He was placed at the head of the Department 
of State. In this situation, also, he manifested conspicuous ability. 
His correspondence with the ministers of other powers residing 
here, and his instructions to our own diplomatic agents abroad, are 
among our ablest State Papers. A thorough knowledge of the laws 
and usages of nations, perfect acquaintance with the immediate 
subject before him, great felicity, and still greater facility, in writing, 
show themselves in whatever effort his official situation called on 
him to make. It is believed, by competent judges, that the diplo- 
matic intercourse of the government of the United States, from the 
first meeting of the Continental Congress in 1774 to the present 
time, taken together, would not suffer, in respect to the talent with 
which it has been conducted, by comparison with anything which 
other and older states can produce; and to the attainment of this 
respectability and distinction, Mr. Jefferson has contributed his full 

part. 

On the retirement of General Washington from the presidency, 
and the election of Mr. Adams to that ofhce, in 1797, he was chosen 
Vice-President. While presiding, in this capacity, over the delib- 
erations of the senate, he compiled and published a Manual of Par- 
liamentary Practice, a work of more labor and more merit, than is 
indicated by its size. It is now received, as the general standard, 
by which proceedings are regulated, not only in both Houses of 
Congress, but in most of the other legislative bodies in the country. 
In 1801, he was elected President, in opposition to Mr. Adams, and 
re-elected in 1805, by a vote approaching towards unanimity. 

From the time of his final retirement from public life, in 1808, Mr 
Jefferson lived, as becanie a wise man. Surrounded by affectionate 



91 

friends, his ardor in the pursuit of knowledge undiminished, with 
uncommon health, and unbroken spirits, he was able to enjoy large- 
ly the rational pleasures of life, and to partake in that public pros- 
perity, which he had so much contributed to produce. His kindness 
and hospitality, the charm of his conversation, the ease of his man- 
ners, the extent of his acquirements, and especially the full store of 
revolutionary incidents, which he possessed, and which he knew 
when and how to dispense, rendered his abode in a high degree at- 
tractive to his admiring countrymen, while his high public and scien- 
tific character drew towards him every intelligent and educated trav- 
eller from abroad. Both Mr. Adams and Mr. Jefferson had the 
pleasure of knowing that the respect, which they so largely received, 
was not paid to their official stations. They were not men made 
great by office; but great men, on whom the country for its own ben- 
efit had conferred office. There was that in them, which office did 
not give, and which the relinquishment of office did not, and could 
not, take away. In their retirement, in the midst of their fellow 
citizens, themselves private citizens, they enjoyed as high regard 
and esteem, as when filling the most important placesof public trust. 

There remained to Mr. Jefferson yet one other work of patriotism 
and beneficence, the establishment of a university in his native state. 
To this object he devoted years of incessant and anxious attention, 
and by the enlightened liberality of the legislature of Virginia, and 
the co-operation of other able and zealous friends, he lived to see it 
accomplished. May all success attend this infant seminary; and 
may those who enjoy its advantages, as often as their eyes shall rest 
on the neighbouring height, recollect what they owe to their disinter- 
ested and indefatigable benefactor; and may letters honor him who 
thus labored in the cause of letters. 

Thus useful, and thus respected, passed the old age of Thomas 
Jefferson. But time was on its ever-ceaseless wing, and was now 
bringing the last hour of this illustrious man. He saw its approach, 
with undisturbed serenity. He counted the moments, as they pass- 
ed, and beheld that his last sands were falling. That day, too, was 
at hand, which he had helped to make immortal. One wish, one 
hope — if it were not presumptuous — beat in his fainting breast. 
Could it be so — might it please God — he would desire — once more — 
to see the sun — oijce more to look abroad on the scene around him, 
on the great day of liberty. Heaven, in its mercy, fulfilled that 
prayer. He saw that sun — he enjoyed its sacred light — he thanked 
God, for this mercy, and bowed his aged head to the grave. " Felix, 
lion rilif lanttim clarifalc, scd cliom npporianilale morlisj'* 

The last public labor of Mr. Jefferson naturally suggests the ex- 
pression of the high praise which is due, both to him and to Mr. Ad- 
ams, for their uniform and zealous attachment to learning, and to the 
cause of general knowledge. Of the advantages of learning, indeed, 
and of literary accomplishments, their own characters were striking 
recommc ndations, and illustrations. They were scholars, ripe and 
good scholars; widely acquainted with ancient, £is well as modern 
literature, and not altogether uninstructcd in the deeper sciences. 
Their acquirements, doubtless, were difierent, and so were the par- 



. - 92 

ticular objects of their literary pursuits; as their tastes and charac- 
ters, in these respects, differed like those of other men. Being, al- 
so, men of busy lives, with great objects, requiring action, constant- 
ly before them, their attainments in letters did not become showy, 
or obtrusive. Yet, I would hazard the opinion, that if we could now 
ascertain all the causes which gave them eminence and distinction, 
in the midst of the great men with whom they acted, we should find, 
not among the least, their early acquisition in literature, the resour- 
ces which it furnished, the promptitude and facility which it commu- 
nicated, and the wide field it opened, for analogy and illustration; 
giving them, thus, on every subject, a larger view, and a broader 
range, as well for discussion, as for the government of their own 
conduct. 

Literature sometimes, and pretensions to it much oflener, disgusts, 
by appearing to hang loosely on the character, like something for- 
eign or extraneous, not a part, but an ill-adjusted appendage; or by 
seeming to overload and weigh it down, by its unsightly bulk, like 
the productions of bad taste in architecture, where there is massy 
and cumbrous ornament, without strength or solidity of column. 
This has exposed learning, and especially classical learning, to re- 
proach. Men have seen that it might exist, without mental superi- 
ority, without vigor, without good taste, and without utility. But, 
in such cases, classical learning has only not inspired natural talent; 
or, at most, it has but made original feebleness of intellect, and 
natural bluntness of perception, something more conspicuous. The 
question, after all, if it be a question, is, whether literature, ancient 
as well as modern, does not assist a good understanding, improve 
natural good taste, add polished armor to native strength, and ren- 
der its possessor, not only more capable of deriving private happi- 
ness from contemplation and reflection, but more accomplished, also, 
for action, in the affairs of life, and especially for public action. 
Those whose memories we now honor, were learned men; but their 
learning was kept in its proper place, and made subservient to the 
uses and objects of life. They were scholars not common, nor su- 
perficial; but their scholarship was so in keeping with their charac- 
ter, so blended and inwrought, that careless observers, or bad judges, 
not seeing an ostentatious display of it, might infer that it did not 
exist; forgetting, or not knowing, that classical learning, in men who 
act in conspicuous public stations, perform duties which exercise 
the faculty of writing, or address popular, deliberative, or judicial 
bodies, is often felt, where it is little seen, and sometimes felt more 
etfectually, because it is not seen at all. 

But the cause of knowledge, in a more enlarged sense, the cause 
of general knowledge and of popular education, had no warmer 
friends, nor nure powerful advocates, than Mr. Adams and IMr. Jef- 
ferson. On this foundation, they knew, the whole republican sys- 
tem rested; and this great and all-important truth they strove to 
impress, by all the means in their power. In the early publication, 
already referred to, Mr. Adams expresses the strong and just sen- 
timent, that the education of the poor is more important, even to the 
rich themselves, than all their own riches. On this great truth, in- 



93 

deed, is founded that unrivalled, that invaluable political and moral 
institution, our own blessing, and the glory of our fathers, the New 
England system of free schools 

As the promotion of knowledge had been the object of their re- 
gard through life, so these great men made it the subject of their 
testamentary bounty. Mr. Jefferson is understood to have bequeath- 
ed his library to the university, and that of Mr. Adams is bestowed 
on the inhabitants of Quincy. 

Mr. Adams, and Mr. Jefferson, fellow citizens, were successively 
Presidents of the United States. The comparative merits of their 
respective administrations for a long time agitated and divided pub- 
lic opinion. They were rivals, each supported by numerous and 
powerful portions of the people, for the highest office. This con- 
test, partly the cause, and partly the consequence, of the long exist- 
ence of two great political parties in the country, is now part of the 
history of our government. We may naturally regret, that any- 
thing should have occurred to create difference and discord, between 
those who had acted harmoniously and efficiently in the great con- 
cerns of the revolution. But this is not the time, nor this the oc- 
casion, for entering into the grounds of that difierence, or for at- 
tempting to discuss the merits of the questions which it involves. 
As practical questions, they were canvassed, when the measures 
which they regarded were acted on and adopted; and as belonging 
to history, the time has not come for their consideration. 

It is, perhaps, not wonderful, that when the Constitution of the 
United States went first into operation, different opinions should be 
entertained, as to the extent of the powers conferred by it. Here 
was a natural source of diversity of sentiment. It is still less won- 
derful, that that event, about contemporary with our government, 
under the present Constitution, which so entirely shocked all Europe, 
and disturbed our relations with her leading powers, should be thought, 
by difterent men, to have different bearings on our own prosperity; 
and that the early measures, adopted by our government, in conse- 
quence of this new state of things, should be seen in opposite lights. 
It is for the future historian, when what now remains of prejudice 
and misconception shall have passed away, to state these difierent 
opinions, and pronounce impartial judgment. In the meantime, all 
good men rejoice, and well may rejoice, that the sharpest differences 
sprung out of measures, which, whether right or wrong, have ceased, 
with the exigencies that gave them birth, and have left no permanent 
effect, either on the Constitution, or on the general prosperity of the 
country. This remark, I am aware, may be supposed to have its 
exception, in one measure, the alteration of the Constitution, as to 
the mode of choosing President; but it is true, in its general appli- 
cation. Thus the course of poUcy pursued towards France, in 
1798, on the one hand, and the measures of commercial restriction, 
commenced in 1807, on the other, both subjects of warm and severe 
opposition, have passed away, and left nothing behind them They 
were temporary, and whether wise or unwise, their consequences 
were limited to their respective occasions. It is equally clear, at 
the same time, and it is equally gratifying, that those measures of 



94 

both administrations, which were of durable importance, and which 
drew after them interesting and long remaining consequences, have 
received general approbation. Such was the organization, or rather 
the creation, of the navy, in the administration of Mr. Adams; such 
the acquisition of Louisiana, in that of Mr. Jefferson. The coun- 
try, it may safely be added, is not likely to be willing either to ap- 
prove, or to reprobate, indiscriminately, and in the aggregate, all 
the measures of either, or of any, administration. The dictate of 
reason and of justice is, that, holding each one his own sentiments 
on the points in difference, we imitate the great men themselves, in 
the forbearance and moderation which they have cherished, and in 
the mutual respect and kindness which they have been so much in- 
clined to feel and to reciprocate. 

No men, fellow citizens, ever served their country with more 
entire exemption from every imputation of selfish and mercenary 
motives than those to whose memory we are paying these proofs of 
respect. A suspicion of any disposition to enrich themselves, or to 
profit by their public employments, never rested on either. No 
sordid motive approached them. The inheritance which they have 
left to their children, is of their character and their fame. 

Fellow-citizens, I will detain you no longer by this faint and fee- 
ble tribute to the memory of the illustrious dead. Even in other 
hands, adequate justice could not be performed, within the limits of 
this occasion. Their highest, their best praise, is your deep con- 
viction of their merits, your affectionate gratitude for their labors 
and services. It is not my voice, it is this cessation of ordinary 
pursuits, this arresting of all attention, these solemn ceremonies, 
and this crowded house, which speak their eulogy. Their fame, 
indeed, is safe. That is now treasured up, beyond the reach of ac- 
cident. Although no sculptured marble should rise to their mem- 
ory, nor engraved stone bear record of their deeds, yet will their 
remembrance be as lasting as the land they honored. Marble col- 
umns may, indeed, moulder into dust, time may erase all impress 
from the crumbling stone, but their fame remains; for with Ameri- 
can LIBERTY it rose, and with American liberty only can it perish. 
It was the last swelling peal of yonder choir, " their bodies are 

BURIED IN peace, BUT THEIR NABIE LIVETH EVERMORE." I Catch 

that solemn song, I echo that lofty strain of funeral triumph, "their 

NAME LIVETH EVERMORE." 

Of the illustrious signers of the Declaration of Independence 
there now remains only Charles Carroll. He seems an aged 
oak, standing alone on the plain, which time has spared a little 
longer, after all its contemporaries have been levelled with the 
dust. Venerable object! we delight to gather round its trunk, while 
yet it stands, and to dwell beneath its shadow. Sole survivor of an 
assembly of as great men as the world has witnessed, in a transac- 
tion, one of the most important that history records, what thoughts, 
what interesting reflections must fill his elevated and devout soul! 
If he dwell on the past, how toucliing its recollections; if he survey 
the present, how happy, how joyous, how full of the fruition of that 
hope, which his ardent patriotism indulged; if he glance at the fu 



95 

ture, how does the prospect of his country's advancement almost 
bewilder his weakened conception! Fortunate, distinguished pa- 
triot! Interesting relic of the past! Let him know that while we 
honor the dead, we do not forget the living; and that there is not a 
heart here which does not fervently pray, that Heaven may keep 
him yet back from the society of his companions. 

And now, fellow citizens, let us not retire from this occasion, 
without a deep and solemn conviction of the duties which have de- 
volved upon us. This lovely land, this glorious liberty, these benign 
institutions, the dear purchase of our fathers, are ours; ours to 
enjoy, ours to preserve, ours to transmit. Generations past, and 
generations to come, hold us responsible for this sacred trust. Our 
fathers, from behind, admonish us, with their anxious paternal 
voices, posterity calls out to us, from the bosom of the future, the 
world turns hither its solicitous eyes — all, all conjure us to act 
wisely, and faithfully, in the relation which we sustain. We can 
never, mdeed, pay the debt which is upon us; but by virtue, by mo- 
rality, by religion, by the cultivation of every good principle and 
every good habit, we may hope to enjoy the blessing, through our 
day, and to leave it unimpaired to our children. Let us feel deeply 
how much, of what we are and of what we possess, we owe to this 
liberty, and these institutions of government. Nature has, indeed, 
given us a soil, which yields bounteously to the hands of industry, 
the mighty and fruitful ocean is before us, and the skies over our 
heads shed health and vigor. But what are lands, and seas, and 
skies, to civilized man, without society, without knowledge, without 
morals, without religious culture; and how can these be enjoyed, in 
all their extent, and all their excellence, but under the protection 
of wise institutions and a free government ? Fellow citizens, there 
is not one of us, there is not one of us here present, who does not, 
at this moment, and at every moment, experience, in his own con 
dition, and in the condition of those most near and dear to him, the 
influence and the benefits of this liberty, and these institutions. 
Let us then acknowledge the blessing, let us feel it deeply and pow- 
erfully, let us cherish a strong affection for it, and resolve to main- 
tain and perpetuate it. The blood of our fathers, let it not have 
been shed in vain; the great hope of posterity, let it not be blasted. 

The striking attitude, too, in which we stand to the world around 
us, a topic to which, I fear, I advert too often, and dwell on too 
long, cannot be altogether omitted here. Neither individuals nor 
nations can perform their part well, until they understand and feel 
its importance, and comprehend and justly appreciate all the duties 
belonging to it. It is not to inflate national vanity, nor to swell a 
light and empty feeling of self-importance, but it is that we may 
judge justly of our situation, and of our own duties, that I earnest- 
ly urge this consideration of our position, and our character, among 
the nations of the earth. It cannot be denied, but^ by those who 
would dispute against the sun, that with America, and in America, 
a new era commences in human affairs. This era is distinguished 
by Free Representative Governments, by entire religious liberty, 
by improved systems of national intercourse, by a newly awakened, 



and an unconquerable spirit of free inquiry, and by a diffusion of 
knowledge through the community, such as has been before alto- 
gether unknown and unheard of. America, America, our country, 
fellow citizens, our own dear and native land, is inseparably connect- 
ed, fast bound up, in fortune and by late, with these great interests. 
If they fall, we fall with them; if they stand, it will be because we 
have upholden them. Let us contemplate, then, this connexion, 
which binds the prosperity of others to our own; and let us manfully 
discharge all the duties which it imposes. If we cherish the virtues 
and the principles of our fathers. Heaven will assist us to carry on 
the work of human liberty and human happiness. Auspicious 
omens cheer us. Great examples are before us. Our own firma- 
ment now shines brightly upon our path. Washington is in the 
clear upper sky. These other stars have now joined the American 
constellation; they circle round their centre, and the heavens beam 
with new light. Beneath this illumination, let us walk the course 
of life, and at its close devoutly commend our beloved country, the 
common parent of us all, to the Divine Benignity. 



SPEECH 



DELIVERED AT A MEETING OF CITIZENS OF BOSTON, HELD IN FAN- 
EUIL HALL, ON THE EVENING OF APRIL 3d, 1825, PREPARATORY TO 
THE GSNERAL ELECTION IN MASSACHUSETTS. 



Mr. Webster said, he was quite unaccustomed to appear in that 
place; having, on no occasion, addressed his fellow citizens there, 
either to recommend or to oppose the support of any candidates for 
public office. He had long been of opinion, that to preserve the 
distinction, and the hostility, of political parties, was not consistent 
with the highest degree of public good. At the same time he did 
not find--fault with the conduct, nor question the motives, of those 
who thought otherwise. But, entertaining this opinion, he had ab- 
stained from attending on those occasions, in which the merits of 
public men, and of candidates for office, were discussed, necessarily, 
with more or less reference to party attachment, and party organi- 
zation. 

The present was a different occasion. The sentiment which had 
called this meeting together, was a sentiment of union and concilia- 
tion; a sentiment so congenial to his own feelings, and to his opinion 
of the public interest, that he could not resist the inclination to be 
present, and to express his entire and hearty approbation. 

He should forbear, Mr. W. said, from all remarks upon the par- 
ticular names which had been recommended by the committee. 
They had been selected, he must presume, fairly, and with due 
consideration, by those who were appointed for that purpose. In 
cases of this sort every one cannot expect to find everything pre- 
cisely as he might wish it;, but those who concurred in the general 
sentiment would naturally allow that sentiment to prevail, as far as 
possible, over particular objections. 

On the general question he would make a few remarks, begging 
the indulgence of the meeting, if he should say anything which 
might with more propriety, proceed from others. 

He hardly conceived how well disposed and intelligent minds 
could differ, as to the question, whether party contest, and party 
strife, organized, systematic, and continued, were of themselves 
desirable ingredients in the composition of society. — Difference of 
opinion, on political subjects, honorable competition, and emulous 
13 ■ I 



98 

rivalry, may, indeed, be useful. But these are very different things 
from -organized and systematic party combinations. Pic admitted, 
even, that party associations were sometimes unavoidable, and per- 
haps necessary, to the accomplishment of other ends and purposes. 
— But this did not prove that, of themselves, they were good; or 
that they should be continued and preserved for their own sake, 
when there had ceased to be any object to be effected by them. 

But there were those who supposed, that whether pcditical party 
distinctions were, or were not, useful, it was impossible to aliolisb 
them. Now he thought, on the contrary, that under present cir- 
cumstances, it was quite impossible to continue them. New parties, 
indeed, might arise, growing out of new events, or new questions; 
but as to those old parties, which had sprung from controversies 
now no longer pending, or from feelings which time and other causes 
had now changed, or greatly allayed, he did not believe that they 
could long remain. Efforts, indeed, made to that end, with zeal and 
perseverance, might delay their extinction, but, he thought, could 
not prevent it. There was nothing to keep alive these distinctions, 
in the interests and objects which now engage society. New ques- 
tions and new objects arise, having no connexion with the subjects 
of past controversies, and present interest overcomes or absorbs the 
recollection of former controversies. All that are united on these 
existing questions, and present interests, are not likely to w^eaken 
their efforts to promote them by angry reflections on past difleren- 
ces. If there were nothing, in tJmigs, to divide about, he thought 
the people not likely to maintain systematic controversies about 
men. They have no interest in so doing. Associations formed to 
support principles, may be called parlies; but if they have no bond 
of union but adherence to particular men they become y'«c/ro?is. 

The people, in his opinion, were at present grateful to all parties, 
for whatever of good they had accomplished, and indulgent to all 
for whatever of error they had committed; and, with these feelings, 
were now mainly intent on the great objects which affected their 
present interests. There might be exceptions to this remark; he 
was afraid there were; but nevertheless, such appeared to him to be 
the general feeling in the country. It was natural that some preju- 
dices should remain longer than their causes, as the waves lash the 
shore, for a time, after the storm has subsided; but the tendency of 
the elements was to repose. — Monopolies of all sorts were getting 
out of fashion, they were yielding to liberal ideas, and to the obvi- 
ous justice and expediency of fair competition. 

An administration of the general government, which had been, 
in general, highly satisfactory to the country, had now* closed. He 
was not aware that it could with propriety be said that that adminis- 
tration had been either supported, or op|)osed by any party associa- 
tions, or on any party principles. Certain it was, that as far as there 
had been any organized opposition to the administration, it had had 
nothing to do with former parties.. A new administration had now 
commenced, and he need hardly say that the most liberal and con- 
ciliatory principles had been avowed. It could not be doubted, that 
it would conform to those principles. Thus far, he believed, its 
course had given general satisfaction. Alter what they all had seen, 



99 

in relation to the gentlemen holding the highefc't pppointrnent in the 
Executive Department, under the President, he would take this 
opportunity to say, that having been a member of the House of 
Representatives for six years, during the far greater part of which 
time Mr. Clay had presided in that House, he was most happy in 
being able, in a manner less formal than by concurring in the usual 
vote of thanks, to express his own opinion of his liberality, inde- 
pendence, and honorable feeling. And he would take this occa- 
sion also to add, if his opinion could be of any value in such a 
case, that he thought nothing more unfounded than that that gentle- 
man owed his present situation to any unworthy compromise or 
arrangement whatever. He owed it to his talent, to his prominent 
standing in the community, to his course of public service, not now 
a short one, and to the high estimation in which he stands with that 
part of the country to which he belongs. 

Remarks, Mr. Webster proceeded to say, had been made from 
the Chair, very kind and partial, as to the manner in which he had 
discharged the duties which he owed to his constituents, in the 
House of Representatives. He wished to say, that if he had been 
able to render any, the humblest services, either to the public or his 
constituents, in that place, it was owing wholly to the liberal manner 
in which his efforts there had been received. 

Having alluded to the Inaugural Address, he did not mean in the 
slightest degree to detract from its merits, when he now said, that 
in his opinion, if either of the other candidates had succeeded in the 
election, he also would have adopted a liberal course of policy. He 
had no reason to believe that the sentiments of either qf those gen- 
tlemen were, in this respect, narrow or contracted. He fully be- 
lieved the contrary, in regard to both of them; but if they had been 
otherwise, he thought still, that expediency or necessity, would have 
controlled their inclinations. 

I forbear, said Mr. W., from pursuing these remarks farther. I 
repeat, that I do not complain of those who have hitherto thought, 
or who still think, that party organization is necessary to the public 
good. I do not question their motives; and I wish to be tolerant 
even to those who think that toleration ought not to be indulged. 

It is said, sir, that prosperity sometimes hardens the heart. Per- 
haps, also, it may sometimes have a contrary effect, and elevate and 
liberalize the feelings. If this can ever be the result of such a 
cause, there is certainly in the present condition of the country 
enough to inspire the most grateful and the kindest feelings. We 
have a common stock both of happiness and of distinction, of which 
we are all entitled as citizens of the country to partake. We may 
all rejoice in the general prosperity, in the peace and security which 
we enjoy, and in the brilliant success which has thus far attended 
our republican institutions. These are circumstances which may 
well excite in us all a noble pride. Our civil and political institu- 
tions, while they answer for us all the great ends designed by them, 
furnish at the same time an example to others, and diffuse blessings 
beyond our own limits. — In whatever part of the globe men are 
found contending for political liberty, they look to the United States 



100 

with a feeling of brotherhood, and put forth a claim of kindred. 
The South American States, especially, exhibit a most interesting 
spectacle. Let the great men who formed our constitutions of gov- 
ernment, who still survive, and let the children of those who have 
gone to their graves console themselves with the reflection, that 
whether they have risen or fallen in the little contests of party, they 
have not only established the liberty and happiness of their own 
native land, but have conferred blessings beyond their own country, 
and beyond their own thoughts, on millions of men, and on succes- 
sions of generations. Under the influence of these institutions, 
received and adopted in principle, from our example, the whole 
southern continent has shaken off its colonial subjection. — A new 
world, filled with fresh and interesting nations, has risen to our 
sight. America seems again discovered; not to geography, but to 
commerce, to social intercourse, to intelligence, to civilisation, and 
to liberty. Fifty years ago, some of those who now hear me, and 
the fathers of many others; listened in this place, to those mighty 
masters, Otis and Adams. When they then uttered the spirit stir- 
ring sounds of Independence and Liberty, there was not a foot of 
land on the continent inhabited by civilized man, tliat did not ac- 
knowledge the dominion of European power. Thank God, at this 
moment, from us to the south pole, and from sea to sea, there is 
hardly a foot that does. 

And, sir, when these States, thus newly disenthralled and eman- 
cipated, assume the tone, and bear the port of independence, what 
language, and what ideas do we find associated, with their new 
acquired liberty.'' They speak, sir, of Constitutions, of Declara- 
tions of Rights, of the Liberty of the Press, of a Congress, and 
of Representative Government. Where, sir, did they learn these? 
And when they have applied, to their great leader, and the founder 
of their States, the language of praise and commendation, till they 
have exhausted it — when unsatisfied gratitude can express itself no 
otherwise, do they not call him their VVashington ? Sir, the Spirit 
of Continental Independence, the Genius of American Liberty, 
which in earlier times tried her infant voice in the halls and on* the 
hills of New England, utters it now, with power tliat seems to wake 
the dead, on the plains of Mexico, and along the sides of the Andes. 

" Her path, where'er the Goddess roves. 
Glory pursues, and generous shame, 
The unconquerable mind, and Freedom's holy flame." 

There is one other point of view, sir, in regard to which I will 
say a few words, though perhaps at some hazard of misinterpreta- 
tion. 

In the wonderful spirit of improvement and enterprise which ani- 
mates the country, we may be assured that each quarter will natu- 
rally exert its power in favor of objects in which it is interested. 
This is natural and unavoidable. Each portion, therefore, will use 
its best means. If the West leels a strong interest in clearing the 
navigation of its mighty streams, and opening roads through its vast 
forests; if the South is equally zealous to push the production and 



101 

augment the prices of its great staples, it is reasonable to expect, 
that these objects will be pursued by the best means which ofier. 
And it may therefore well deserve consideration, whether the com- 
mercial, and navigating, and manufacturing interests of the North 
do not call on us to aid and support them, by united counsels, and 
united efforts. But I abstain from enlarging on this topic. Let 
me rather say, sir, that in regard to the whole country, a new era 
has arisen. In a time of peace, the proper pursuits of peace en- 
gage society with a degree of enterprise, and an intenseness of ap- 
plication, heretofore unknown. New objects are opening, and new 
resources developed, on every side. We tread on a broader theatre; 
and if instead of acting our parts, according to the novelty and im- 
portance of the scene, we waste our strength in mutual crimination 
and recrimination about the past, we shall resemble those navigators, 
who having escaped from some crooked and narrow river to the sea, 
now that the whole ocean is before them, should, nevertheless, oc- 
cupy themselves with the differences which happene'd as they passed 
along among the rocks and the shallows, instead of opening their 
eyes to the wide horizon around them, spreading their sail to the 
propitious gale that woos it, raising their quadrant to the sun, and 
grasping the helm, with the conscious hand of a master 



TT^ 



SPEECH 

IN FANEUIL HALL, ON THURSDAY, JUNE 5th, 1828. 



At a public dinner given him, by the citizens of Boston, as a mark of respect for his public 
services as Senator of tlie United States, and late their Representative in Congress, — after 
(he annunciation of tlie following toast : — " Our distinguished Guest — worthy the noblest 
homage, which freemen can give, or a freeman receive: the homage of their hearts." 
Mr. Webster rose and said : — 

Mr. Chairman, — The honor conferred by this occasion, as well 
as the manner in which the meeting has been pleased to receive what 
has now been proposed to them from the Chair, requires from me a 
most respectful acknowledgement, and a few words of honest and 
sincere thanks. I should, indeed, be lost to alljust feeling, or guil- 
ty of a weak and peurile affectation, if I should fail to manifest the 
emotions which are excited by these testimonials of regard, from 
those among whom I live, who see me oflenest, and know me best. 
If the approbation of good men be an object fit to be pursued, it is 
fit to be enjoyed; if it be, as it doubtless is, one of the most stirring 
and invigorating motives, which operate upon the mind, it is, also, 
among the richest rewards which console and gratify the heart. 

I confess myself particularly touched and afiected, Mr. President, 
and gentlemen, by the kind feeling which you manifest towards me, 
as your fellow citizen, your neighbour, and your friend. Respect and 
confidence, in these relations of life, lie at the foundation of all valu- 
able character; they are as essential to solid and permanent reputa- 
tion, as to durable and social happiness. I assure you, sir, with the 
utmost sincerity, that there is nothing which could flow from human 
approbation or applause, no distinction, however high or alluring, no 
object of ambition, which could possibly be brought within the hori- 
zon of my view, that would tempt me, in any degree, justly to forfeit 
the attachment of my private friends, or surrender my hold, as a citi- 
zen, and a neighbour, on the confidence of the community in which 
I live; a community, to which I owe so much, in the bosom of which 
I have enjoyed so much, and where I still hope to remain, in the ex- 
ercise of mutual good offices, and the interchange of mutual good 
wishes, for the residue of life. 

The commendation which the meeting has bestowed on my at- 
tempts at public service, I am conscious, is measured rather by their 
own kindness, than by any other standard. Of those attempts, no 
one can think more humbly than I do. The aftairs of the general 



103 

government, foreign and domestic, are vast, and various, and com- 
plicated. They require from tliose who would aspire to take a lead- 
ing part in them an amount, a variety, and an accuracy of informa- 
tion, which even if the adequate capacity were not wanting, are not 
easily attained, by one whose attention is necessarily mainly devoted 
to the duties of an active and laborious profession. For this as well 
as many other reasons, I am conscious of having discharged my 
public duties, in a manner no way entitling them to the degree of 
favor which has now been manifested. 

And this manifestation of favor and regard is the more especially 
to be referred to the candor and kindness of the meeting, on this oc- 
casion, since it is well known, that in a recent instance, and in re- 
gard to an important measure, I have felt it my duty to give a vote, 
in respect to the expediency and propriety of which considerable dif- 
fei-ence of opmion exists, Isetween persons equally entitled to my 
regard and confidence. — The candid interpretation which has been 
given to that vote, by those who disapproved it, and the assembling 
together here, for the purpose of this occasion, of those who felt pain, 
as well as those who felt pleasure, at the success of the measure for 
which the vote was given, afford ample proof, how far unsuspected 
uprightness of intention, and the exercise of an independent judg- 
ment may be respected, even by those who differ from the results to 
which that exercise of judgment has arrived. There is no class of 
the community for whose interests I have ever cherished a more sin- 
cere regard, than that on whose pursuits some parts of the measure 
alluded to bears with great severity. They are satisfied, I hope, that 
In supporting a measure in any degree injurious to them, I must have 
been governed by other .paramount reasons, satisfactory to my own 
conscience; and that the blow, inflicted on their interests, was felt 
by me almost as painfully and heavily, as it could be by those on 
whom it immediately fell. I am not now about to enter into the 
reason of that vote, or to explain the necessity under which I Ibund 
myself placed by a most strange and unprecedented manner of legis- 
lation, of taking the evil of a public measure for the sake of its good; 
the go&d and the bad provisions relating to different subjects, having 
not the slightest connexion with each other, yet yoked together, and 
kept together, for reasons and purposes which I need not state, as 
they have been boldly avowed, and are now before the public. 

It was my misfortune, sir, on that occasion to differ from my most 
estimable and worthy colleague. And yet probably our difference 
was not so broad as it might seem. We both saw, in the measure, 
something to approve, and sometliing to disapprove. If it could have 
been left to us to mould and to frame it according to our opinions of 
what the good of the country required, there would have been no 
diversity of judgment between us, as to what should have been re- 
tained and what rejected. The only difference was, when the mea- 
sure had assumed its final shape, whether the good it contained so 
far preponderated over its acknowledged evil, as to justify the recep- 
tion and support of the whole togetlier. On a point of this sort, and 
under circumstances such as those in which we were placed, it is not 
strange that dificrent minds should incline ditlerent ways. It gives 
me great pleasure to bear testimony to the constancy, the intelligence 



104 

and the conscious fidelity with which my colleague discharged his 
public duty, in reference to this subject. I am happy also to have 
the opportunity of saying, that if the bill had been presented to me, 
in the form it was when it received a negative vote from the distin- 
guished gentleman who represents this District, my own opinion of 
it would have entirely concurred with his, and I should have voted 
in the same manner. 

The meeting will indulge me with one further remark, before part- 
ing from this subject. It is only the suggestion, that in the place I 
occupied I was one of the Representatives of the whole Common- 
wealth. I was not at liberty to look exclusively to the interests of 
the District in which I live, and which I have heretofore had the 
high honor of representing. I was to extend my view from Barns- 
table to Berkshire; to comprehend in it a proper regard for all inter- 
ests, and a proper respect for all opinions. Looking to the aggre- 
gate of all the interests of the Commonwealth, and regarding the 
general current of opinion, so far as that was properly to be respect- 
ed, I saw — at least I thought I saw — my duty to lie in the path which 
I pui-sued. The measure is adopted. Its consequences, for good 
or evil, must be left to the results of experience. In the meantime, 
I refer the propriety of the vote which I gave, with entire submission, 
and with the utmost cheerfulness also, to the judgment of the good 
people of the Conmionwealth. 

On some other subjects, Mr. President, I had the good fortune to 
act in perfect vuiison with my colleague, and with every Representa- 
tive of the State. On one, especially, the success of which, I am 
sure, must have gratified every one who hears me. I could not, sir, 
have met this meeting here, I could not have raised my voice in Fan- 
euil Hall — you would have awed me down — if you had not, the pic- 
tures of Patriots which adorn these walls would have frowned me 
into silence, if I had refused either my vote or my voice to the cause 
of the officers and soldiers of the revolutionary army. That mea- 
sure, mixed up of justice, and charity, and mercy, is at last accom- 
plished. The survivors, among those who fought our revolutionary 
battles, under an engagement to see the contest through, are at 
length provided for, not sumptuously, not extravagantly, but in a 
manner to place them, in their old age, beyond the reach of absolute 
want. Solace, also, has been administered to their feelings, as well 
as to their necessities. They are not left to count their scars, or to 
experience the pain of wounds, inflicted half a century ago, in their 
country's service, without some token, that they are yet held in grate- 
ful remembrance — a gratifying proof of respect for the services of 
their youth and manhood quickens the pulsations of patriotism, in 
veteran bosoms; and as they may now live, beyond the reach of ab- 
solute want, so they will have the pleasure of closing life, when that 
time for closing it shall come, which must come, with the happy con- 
sciousness of meritorious services, gratefully recompensed. 

Another subject, now becoming exceedingly interesting, was, in 
various forms, presented to Congress at the last session; and in re- 
gard to which, I believe, there is, substantially, a general union of 
opinion among the members from this Conunonwcalth. I mean 
what is commonly called Internal Improvements. The great and 



105 

growing importance of this subject may, I hope, justify a few re- 
marks, relative to it, on the present occasion. 

It was evident to all persons of much observation, at the close of the 
late war, that the condition and prospects of the United States had be- 
come essentially changed, in regard to sundry great interests of the 
country. Almost from the commencement of the government, down 
near to the commencement of that war, the United States had occu- 
pied a position of singular and extraordinary advantage. They had 
been at peace, while the powers of Europe had been at war. The 
harvest of neutrality had been to them rich and ample; and they had 
reaped it with skill and diligence. Their agriculture and commerce 
had both felt sensibly, the benefit arising from the existing state of 
the world. Bread was raised for those whose hands were otherwise 
employed than in the cultivation of the field, and the seas were navi- 
gated, for account of such, as being belligerents, could not safely 
navigate them for themselves. These opportunities for useful em- 
ployment were all seized and enjoyed, by the enterprise of the coun- 
try; and a high degree of prosperity was the natural result. 

But with general peace, a new state of things arose. The Euro- 
pean states at once turned their own attention to the pursuits, 
proper for their new situation, and sought to extend their own agri- 
cultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests. It was evident, 
that thenceforward, instead of enjoying the advantages peculiar to 
neutrality, in times of war, a general competition would spring up, 
and nothing was to be expected without a struggle. Other nations 
would now raise their own bread, and as far as possible, transport 
their own commodities; and the export trade, and the carrying trade 
of this country, were, therefore, certain to receive new and powerful 
competition, if not sudden and violent checks. It seemed reason- 
able, therefore, in this state of things, to turn our thoughts inwards, 
to explore the hitherto unexplored resourses of our own country, to 
find out, if we could, new diversifications of industry, new subjects 
for the application of labor at home. It was fit to consider how far 
home productions could, properly, be made-to furnish activity to home 
supply; and since the country stretched over so many parallels of 
latitude and longitude, abounding, of course, in the natural produc- 
tions proper to each, it was of the highest importance to inquire what 
means existed of establishing free and cheap intercourse, between 
those parts, thereby bringing the raw material, abounding in one, 
under the action of the productive labor which was found m another. 
Roads and Canals, therefore, were seen to be of the first conse- 
quence. And then the interesting question arose; how far it was 
constitutionally lawful, and how far expedient, for the general gov- 
ernment to give aid and succour to the business of making roads and 
canals, in conjunction with individual enterprise, or State underta- 
kings. I am among those who have held the opinion that if any ob- 
ject of that kind be" of general and national importance, it is within 
the scope of the powers of the government; though I admit it to be 
a power which should be exercised \yith very great care and discre- 
tion. Congress has power to rcoukde commerce, both internal and 
external; and whatever might have been thought to be the literal in- 
terpretation of these terms^ we know the construction to have been, 
14 



106 

from the very first assembling of Congress, and by the very men 
w ho framed the Constitution, that the regulation of commerce com- 
prehended such measures as were necessary for its support, its im- 
provement, its advancement; and justified such expenditures as Piers, 
IJcapons, and Lighthouses, and the clearing out of harbours requir- 
ed. Instances of this sort, in the application of the general reve- 
nues, have been frequent, from the commencement of the govern- 
niont. As the same power, precisely, exists in relation to internal 
as to external trade, it was not easy to see why like expenditures 
might not be justified, when made on intei'nal objects. The vast re- 
gions of the West are penetrated by rivers, to which those of Kurope 
are but as rills and brooks. — But the navigation of these noble 
streams, washing, as they do, the margin of one third of the States 
of the Union, was obstructed by obstacles, capable of being removed, 
jlnd yet not likely to be removed, but by the power of the general 
government. Was this a justifiable object of expenditure from the 
national treasury ? Without hesitation, I have thougiit it was. A 
vast chain of lakes, if it be not more proper to call them a succession 
of inland seas, stretches into the deep interior of this northern part 
of the continent, as if kindly placed there by Providence to break 
the continuity of the land, and afford the easier and readier inter- 
course of water conveyance. — But these vast lakes required, ateo, 
harbours, and lights, and breakwaters? And were these lawful ob- 
jects of national legislation.^ To me, certainly, they have appeared 
to be such, as clearly as if they were on the Atlantic border. 

In most of the new States of the West, the United States are yet 
proprietors of vast bodies of land. Through soma of these States, 
and sometimes through these same public lands, the local authorities 
have prepared to carry expensive canals, for the general benefit of 
the country. Some of these undertakings have been attended with 
great expense, have subjected the States, where enterprising spirit 
has begun and carried them on, to large debts, and heavy taxation. 
The lands of the United States being exempted from all taxation, of 
course bear no part of this l)urdcn. Looking to the United States, 
therefore, as a great landed proprietor, essentially benefited by these 
improvements, I have felt no diflicidty in voting for the appropriation 
of parts of these lands, as a reasonable contribution by the United 
States to these general objects. 

Most of the subjects to which I have referred, are much less local, 
in their influence, and importance, tlian they might seem. The 
breakwater in the Delaware, useful to Philadelphia, is useful also 
to all the ship-owners in the United States, and indeed to all inter- 
ested in commerce, especially that great branch, the coastwise 
commerce. If the mouths of the southern rivers be deepened and 
improved, the neighbouring cities are benefited, but so also are the 
ships which visit them; and if the Mississippi and Ohio be rendered 
more safe for navigation, the great markets of consumption along 
their shores are the more readily and cheaply approached by the 
products of the Factories and the Fisheries of New England. 

It is my opinion, INIr. President, that the present government can- 
not be maintained but by administering it on principles as wide and 
broad as the country over which it extends. I mean, of course, no 



107 

extension of the powers which it confers; but I speak of the spirit 
with which those powers should be exercised. If there be any doubts, 
whether so many republics, covering so great a portion of the globe, 
can be long held together under this Constitution, there is no doubt 
in my judgment, of the impossibility of so holding them together by 
any narrow, contracted, local, or selfish systenl of legislation. To 
render the Constitution perpetual, (which God grant it may be) it is 
necessary that its benefits should" be practically felt, by all parts of 
the country, and all interests in the country. The East and the 
West, the North and the South, must all see their own welfare pro- 
tected and advanced by it. While the eastern frontier is defended 
by fortifications, its harbours improved, and commerce defended by a 
naval force, it is right and just that the region beyond the Alleghany 
should receive fair consideration and equal attention, in any ol)ject 
of public improvement, interesting to itself, and within the proper 
power of the government. — These, sir, are, in brief, the general 
views by which I have been governed, on questions of this kind; 
and 1 trust they are such as this meeting does not disapprove. 

I would not trespass farther upon your attention, if I did not feel 
it my duty to say a few words on the condition of public afiairs under 
another aspect. We are on the eve of a new election for President; 
and the manner in which the existing administration is attacked might 
lead a stranger to suppose, that the Chief Magistrate had committed 
some flagrant offence against the country, threatened to overturn its 
liberties, or establish a military usurpation. On a former occasion 
I have, in this place, expressed my opinion of the principle, upon 
which the opposition to the administration is founded; without any 
reference whatever to the person who stands as its apparent head, 
and who is intended by it to be placed in the chief executive chair. 
I think that principle exceedingly dangerous and alarming, inasmuch 
as it does not profess to found opposition to the government on the 
measures of government, but to rest it on other causes, and those 
mostly personal. There is a combination, or association, of persons 
holding the most opposite opinions, both on the constitutional pow- 
ers of the government, and on the leading measures of public con- 
cern, and uniting in little, or in nothing, except the will to dislodge 
power from the hands in which the country has placed it. There 
has been no leading measure of the government, with perhaps a sin- 
gle exception, which has not been strenuously maintained by many, 
or l)y some of those, who co-operate, altogether, nevertheless, in 
pursuit of the object which I have mentioned. This is but one of 
many proofs that the opposition does not rest in the principle of dis- 
approbation of the measures of government. Many other evidences 
of the same truth, might be adduced easily. A remarkable one is, 
that while one ground of objection to the administration is urged in 
one place, its precise opposite is pressed in another. Pennsylva- 
nia and South Carolina, for example, are not treated with the same 
reasons for a change of administration; but with flatly contradictory 
reasons. In one, the administration is represented as bent on a par- 
ticular system, oppressive to that State, and which must ultimately 
ruin it; and for that reason there ought to be a" change. In the 
other, that system, instead of being ruinous, is salutary, is necessary, 



108 

is indispensable. But the administration is but half in earnest in 
supporting it, and for that reason there ought to be a change. 

Jleflecting men have always supposed, that if there were a weak 
point in the Federal Constitution, it was in the provision for the ex- 
ercise of the Executive power. And this, perhaps, may be consid- 
ered as rendered more delicate and difficult, by the great augmenta- 
tion of the number of the States. We must expect that there will 
often be, as there was on tlie last election, several candidates for the 
Presidency. All but one, of course, must be disappointed; and if 
the friends of all such, however otherwise divided, are immediately 
to unite, and to make common cause against him who is elected, lit- 
tle is ever to be expected but embarrassment and confusion. — The 
love of office will, ere long, triumph over the love of country; and 
party and faction usurp the place of wisdom and patriotism. If the 
contest for the executive power is thus to be renewed every four 
years; if it is to be conducted as the present has been conducted; 
and if every election is to be immediately followed, as the last was 
followed, by a prompt union of all whose friends are not chosen, 
against him who is, there is, in my judgment, danger, great danger, 
that this great experiment of confederated government may fail, and 
that even those of us, who are not among the youngest, may behold 
its catastrophe. 

It cannot have escaped the notice of any gentleman present, that 
m the course of the controversy, pains have been taken to affect the 
character and the success of the present chief magistrate, by exci- 
ting odium towards that part of the country in which he was born 
and to which he belongs. Sneers, contumely, reproach, everything 
that gentlemen could say, and many things which gentlemen could 
not say, have been uttered against New England. — I am sure, sir, 
every true son of New England must receive such things, when they 
come from sources which ought to be considered respectable, with a 
feeling of just indignation; and when proceeding from elsewhere, 
with contempt. If there be one among ourselves, who can be in- 
duced, by any motives, to join in this cry against New England, he 
disgraces the New England mother who bore him, the New England 
father who bred and nurtured him, and the New England atmosphere 
which first supplied respiration to those lungs now so unworthily em- 
ployed in uttering calumnies against his country. Persons, not 
known till yesterday, and having little chance of being remembered 
beyond to-morrow, have affected to draw a distinction between the 
Patriot States and the States of New England; assigning the last to 
the present President, and the rest to his rival. I do not wonder, 
sir, at the indignation and scorn which I perceive the recital of this 
injustice produces here. Nothing else wiis to be expected. Fan- 
euil Hall is not a place where one is expected to hear with inditfer- 
ence that New England is not to be counted among the Patriot States. 
The Patriot States! What State was it, sir, that was patriotic when 
patriotism cost something.^ Where but in New England, did tiie 
great drama of the revolution open? Where, but on the soil of Mas- 
sachusetts, was the first blood poured out, in the cause of Liberty 
and Independence.? Where, sooner than here, where earlier than 
within the walls which now surround us, was patriotism found, when 



109 

to be patriotic was to endanger houses and homes, and wives and 
children, and to be ready also, to pay for the reputation of patriotism, 
by the sacrifice of blood and of life ? 

Not farther to refer to her revolutionary merits, it may be truly 
said that IVew England did her part, and more than her part, in the 
establishment of the present government, and in giving effect to the 
measures and the policy of the first President. Where, sir, did the 
measures of Washington find the most active friends, and the firmest 
support? — Where are the general principles of his policy most wide- 
ly spread, and most deeply seated? — If, in subsequent periods, dif- 
ferent opinions have been held, by dilferent portions of her people, 
IVew England has, nevertheless, been always obedient to the laws, 
even when she most severely felt their pressure, and most conscien- 
tiously doubted, or disbelieved their propriety. Every great and 
permanent institution of the country, intended for defence, or for 
improvement, has met her support. And if we look to recent mea- 
sures, on subjects highly interesting to the community, and espe- 
cially some portions of it, we see proofs of the same steady and 
liberal policy. It may be said, with entire truth, and it ought to be 
said, and ought to be known, that no one measure for internal im- 
provement has been carried through Congress, or could have been 
carried, but by the aid of New England votes. It is for those most 
deeply interested in subjects of that sort to consider in season, how 
far the continuance of the same aid is necessary for the further pros- 
ecution of the same objects. From the interference of the general 
government in making roads and canals, New England has as little 
to hope or expect as any part of the country. She has hitherto sup- 
ported fherr, upon principle, and from a sincere disposition to extend 
the blessings and the beneficence of the government. And, sir, I 
confidently believe that those most concerned in the success of these 
measures, feel towards her respect and friendship. They fegl that 
she has acted fairly and liberally, Avholly uninfluenced by selfish or 
sinister motives. Those, therefore, who have seen, or thought they 
saw, an object to be attained by exciting dislike and odium towards 
New England, are not likely to find quite so favorable an audience as 
they have expected. It will not go for quite so much as wished, to the 
disadvantage of the President, that he is a native of Massachusetts. 
Nothing is wanting, but that we, ourselves, should entertain a proper 
feeling on this subject, and act with a just regard to our own rigiits 
and our own duties. If I could collect around me the whole popu- 
lation of New England, or if I could cause my voice to be heard 
over all her green hills, or along every one of her pleasant streams, 
in the exercise of true filial afiection, I would say to her, in the lan- 
guage of the great master of the maxims of life and conduct. 

" This aliove all, — To tliiiie own self be true 
And it niu-st follow, as the night the day, 
Thou canst not then be false to any man." 

Mr. President, — I have delayed you too long. I beg to repeat 
my thanks for the kindness which has been manifested towards me, by 
my fellow citizens, and to conclude by reciprocating their good wislies. 

The Cifv of Boston. Prosperity to all her interests, and happi- 
ness to all her citizens. 

K 



ARGUMENT 



IN THE CASE, THE TRUSTEES OF DARTMOUTH COLLEGE vs. WIL- 
LL\M H. WOODWARD, BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF THE 
UNITED STATES, ON THE 10th DAY OF MARCH, 1818. 

[ The action. The Trustees of Dartmoutli College vs. William H. Woodward, was com- 
menced at tiie Court of Common Pleas, (Jrafton County, State of New Hampshire, Feb- 
ruary Term, 1817. The declaration was Trover fur the Books of Record, oriffinal Charter, 
common Seal and other corporate property of the College. The conversion was alleged to 
have been made on the 7th day of October, 1816. The proper pleas were fded, and by 
coasent, the cause was carried directly to the Superior Court, by Appeal, and entered Ma) 
Term 1817. The general issue was pleaded by the defendant and joined by the plaintifis. 
The facts in tlie case were; then agreed upon, by the jiarties, and drawn up in the form of a 
Special Verdict, reciting the Charter of the College and the acts of the Legislature of the 
State, passed June and December 1816, by which the said Corporation of Dartmouth Col- 
lege was enlarged and improved and the said Charter amended. 

The ((uestion made in the case was, whether those acts of the Legislature were valid 
and binding upon the Corporation, without their acceptance or assent, and not repugnant 
to the Ciinstitution of tile United States. If so, the verdict found for the defendant; olher- 
wise, it found for the plaintiffs. 

The cause was continued to the September Term of the Court in Rockingham County, 
where it was argued; and at the November Term of tlie same year, in Grafton CotnUy, 
the ojjinion of die Court was delivered by Chief Justice Richardson, in favor of the validity 
and constitntinnality of the acts of the Legislature; and judgment was accordingly entered 
for the defendant on the S))ecial Verdict. 

Thereupon a Writ of Error was sued out by the original plaintiffs to remove the cause 
to the Supreme Court of the United States; where it was entered at the Term of the Court 
holden at Washington on the first Monday of February, A. D. 1818. 

The cause came on for argument on the lOlh day of March ISIS, before all the judges. 
It was argued by Mr. Webster and Mr. Hopkinson for the plaintilTs in error, and by Mr. 
Holmes and the Attorney General for the defendant in error. 

At the Term of the Court holden February 1819, the opinion of tiie judges was deliver- 
ed, rieclariug the acts oi' the Legislature unconstitutional and invalid, and reversing the 
judgment of tlie State Court.] 

ARGUMENT OF MR. WEBSTER FOR PLAINTrFFS IN ERROR. 

The general question is, whether the acts of the 27th of June, 
and of the 18th and 26th of December, 1816, are valid and binding 
on the rights of the plaintiffs, villioiil their ncceplnnce or ossent. 

Th(^ ehart<u- of 1769 created and established a corporation, to 
consist of twelve persons, and no more; to be (tailed the " Trustees 
of Dartmouth College." The preamble to the charter recites, that 
it is grnnted on the application and request of the Rev. F.lcazer 



HI 

Wheelock: That Dr. Wheelock, about the year 1754, estabhshed 
a charity school, at his own expense, and on liis own estate and 
plantation: That, for several years, through the assistance of well 
disposed persons in America, granted at his solicitation, he had 
clothed, maintained, and educated a number of the native Indians, 
and employed them atlerwards as missionaries and schoolmasters 
among the savage tribes: That his design promising to be useful, 
he had constituted the Rev. Mr. Whitaker to be his attorney, with 
power to solicit contributions, in England, for the further extension 
and carrying on of his undertaking; and that he had requested the 
Earl of Dartmouth, Baron Smith, Mr. Thornton, and other gentle- 
men, to receive such sums as might be contributed, in England, 
towards supporting his school, and to be trustees thereof, for iiis 
charity; which these persons had agreed to do. And thereupon Dr, 
Wheelock had executed to them a deed of trust, in pursuance to 
such agreement, between him and them, and for divers good reasons, 
.had referred it to these persons, to determine the place in which the 
school should be finally established: And to enable them to form 
a proper decision on this subject, had laid before them the several 
ofiers which had been made to him by the several governments in 
America, in order to induce him to settle and establish his school 
within the limits of such governments for their own emolument, and 
the increase of learning in their respective places, as well as for the 
furtherance of his general original design. And in as much as a 
number of the proprietors of lands in New Hampshire, animated by 
the example of the governor himself and others, and in considera- 
tion that without any impediment to its original design, the school 
might be enlarged and improved, to promote learning among the 
English, and to supply ministers to the people of that province, had 
promised large tracts of land, provided the school should be estab- 
lished in that province, the persons before mentioned, having weighed 
the reasons in favor of the several places proposed, had given the 
preference to this province, and these ofiers; that Dr. Wheelock 
therefore represented the necessity of a legal incorporatio.i^ and 
proposed that certain gentlemen in America, whom he had already 
named and appointed in his will, to be trustees of his charity after 
his decease, should compose the corporation. Upon this recital, 
and in consideration of the laudable original design of Dr. Whee- 
lock, and willing that the best means of education be established in 
JVew Hampshire, for the benefit of the province, the king grants 
the charter, by the advice of his provincial council. 

The substance of the facts thus recited, is, that Dr. Wheelock had 
founded a charity, on funds owned and procured by himself; that he 
was at that time the sole dispenser and sole administrator, as well 
as the legal owner of these funds; that he had made his will, devis- 
ing this property in trust, to continue the existence and uses of the 
school, and appointed trustees; that, in this state of things, he had 
been invited to fix his school, permanently, in New Hampshire, and 
to extend the design of it to the education of the youth of that pro- 
vince; that before he removed his school, or accepted this invitation^ 
which his friends in England had advised him to accept, he applied 
for a charter^to be granted, not to whomsoever the king or govern- 



• 112 

ment of the province should please, but to such persons as he named 
and appointed, viz. the persons whom he had already appointed to 
be the future trustees of his charity by his will. 

The charter, or letters patent, then proceed to create such a cor- 
poration, and to appoint twelve persons to constitute it, by the name 
of the "Trustees of Dartmouth College;" to have perpetual ex- 
istence, as such corporation, and with power to hold and dispose of 
lands and goods, for the use of the college, with all the ordinary 
powers of corporations. They are in their discretion to apply the 
funds and property of the college to the support of the president, 
tutors, ministers, and other officers of the college, and such mis- 
sionaries and schoolmasters as they may see fit to employ among 
the Indians. There are to be twelve trustees forever, (aid no mnir ; 
and they are to have the right of filling vacancies occurring in their 
own body. The Rev. Mr. Wheelock is declared to be the founder 
of the college, and is, by the charter, appointed first president, with 
power to appoint a successor by his last will. All proper powers ol 
government, superintendence, and visitation, are vested in the trus- 
tees. They are to appoint and remove all officers at their discre- 
tion; to fix their salaries, and assign their duties: and to make all 
ordinances, orders, and laws for the government of the students. 
And to the end that the persons who had acted as depositaries of 
the contributions in England, and who had also been contributors 
themselves, might be satisfied of the good use of their contributions, 
the president was annually, or when required, to transmit to them 
an account of the progress of the institution and the disbursements 
of its funds, so long as they should continue to act in that trust. — 
These letters patent are to be good and efl^ectual, in law, against 
the kino;, his heirs and successors forever, without ftirther grant or 
confirmation; and the trustees are to hold all and singular these 
privileges, advantages, liberties, and immunities to them and to their 
successors forever. 

No fiinds are given to the college by this charter. A corporate 
existence and capacitv are given to the trustees, with the privileges 
and immunities which have been mentioned, to enable the founder 
and his associates the better to manage the funds which they them- 
selves had contributed, and such others as they might afterwards 
obtain. 

A tier the institution, thus created and constituted, had existed, 
uninterruptedly and usefully, nearly fifty years, the legislature of 
New Hampshire passed the acts in question. 

The first act makes the twelve trustees under the charter, and 
nine other iadividuals to be appointed by the governor and council, 
a corporation, by a new name; and to tiiis new corporation transfers 
all the properly, rijyhls, potvers, hbeiiics and privileges of the old cor- 
poration; with further power to establish new colleges and an insti- 
tute, and to apply all or any part of the funds to these purposes- 
subject to the power and control of a board of twenty-five overseers, 
to be appointed by the governor and council. 

The second act makes further provisions for executing the objects 
of the first, and the last act authorises the defendant, the treasurer 
of the plaintills, to retain and hold their property, against their will. 



113 

If these acts are valid, the old corporation is abolished, and a 
new one created. The first act does, in fact, if it can have any ef- 
fect, create a new corporation, and transfer to it -all the property and 
franchises of the old. The two corporations are not the same, in 
anything which essentially belongs to the existence of a corporation. 
They have different names, and ditferent powers, rights, and duties 
Their organization is wholly different. The powers of the corpora- 
tion are not vested in the same, or similar hands. In one, the trus- 
tees are twelve, and no more. In the other, they are twenty-one. 
In one, the power is in a single board. In the other, it is divided 
between two boards. Although the act professes to include the old 
trustees in the new corporation, yet that was without their assent, 
and against their remonstrance; and no person can be compelled to 
be a member of such a corporation against his will. It was neither 
expected nor intended, that they should be members of the new 
corporation. The act itself treats the old corporation as at an end, 
and going on the ground that all its functions have ceased, it provides 

••/*! *T 

for tlie first meeting; and orgamzation oj the new corporation. It ex- 
pressly provides, also, that the new corporation shall have and hold 
all the property of the old; a provision which would be quite un- 
necessary upon any other ground, than that the old corporation was 
dissolved. But if it could be contended, that the effect of these 
acts was not entirely to abolish the old corporation, yet it is manliest 
that they impair and invade the rights, property, and powers of the 
trustees under the charter, as a corporation, and the legal rights, 
privileges, and immunities which belong to them, as individual mefn- 
bers of the corporation. 

The twelve trustees were the sole legal owners of all the proper- 
ty acquired under the charter. By the acts others are admitted; 
against their will, to be joint owners. The twelve individuals, who 
are trustees, were possessed of all the franchises and immunities 
conferred by the charter. — By the acts, nine other trustees, and 
twenty-five overseers are admitted against their will, to divide these 
franchises and immunities with them. 

If either as a corporation, or as individuals, they have any legal 
rio-hts, this forcible intrusion of others violates those rights, as mani- 
festly as an entire and complete ouster and dispossession. These 
acts alter the whole constitution of the corporation. They atlect 
the rights of the whole body as a corporation, and the rights of the 
individuals who compose it. They revoke corporate powers and 
franchises. — They alienate and transfer the property of the college 
to others. By the charter, the trustees had a right to fill vacancies 
in their own number. This is now taken away. They were to 
consist of twelve, and by express provision of no more. This is 
altered. They and their successors, appointed by themselves, were 
forever to hold the property. The legislature has found successors 
for them, before their seats are vacant. The powers and privileges, 
which the twelve were to exercise eTchisively, are now to be exer- 
cised by others. By one of the acts, they are subjected to heavy 
penalties, if they exercise their offices, or any of those powers and 
privileges granted them by charter, and which they had exercised 
for fitly years. Tliey are to be punished for not accepting the new 
1.5 K*= 



114 

grant, and taking its benefits. This, it must be confessed, is rather 
a summary mode of settling a question of constitutional right. Not 
only are new trustees forced into the corporation, but new trusts 
and uses are created. The college is turned into a university. 
Power is given to create new colleges, and, to authorise any di- 
version of the funds, which may be agreeable to the new boards, 
sufficient latitude is given by the undefined power of establishing 
an InsiUtite. To these new colleges, and this Institute, the funds 
contributed by the founder. Dr. Wheelock, and by the original do- 
nors, the Earl of Dartmouth and others, are to be applied, in plain 
and manifest disregard of the uses to which they were given. 

The president, one of the old trustees, had a right to his office, 
salary, and emoluments, subject to the twelve trustees alone. His 
title to these is now changed, and he is made accountable to new 
masters. So also all the professors and tutors. If the legislature 
can at pleasure make these alterations and changes, in the riglits and 
privileges of the plaintifis, it may, with equal propriety, abolish these 
rights and privileges altogether. The same power which can do any 
part of this work, can accomplish the whole. And indeed, the ar- 
gument on which these acts have been hitherto defended, goes alto- 
gether on the ground, that this is such a corporation as the legisla- 
ture may abolish at pleasure; and that its members have no rights, 
liberties, fretnchises, properlij or privileges, which the legislature may 
not revoke, annul, alienate or transfer to others whenever it sees fit. 
It will be contended by the plaintiffs that these acts are not valid 
and hindino- on them, wilhoiU their assent. 1. Because they are 
against common right, and the constitution of New Hampshire. 2. 
Because they are repugnant to the constitution of the United States. 
I am aware of the limits which bound the jurisdiction of the court 
in this case, and that on this record nothing can be decided, but the 
single question, whether these acts are repugnant to the constitution 
of the United States. Yet it may assist in forming an opinion of 
their true nature and character, to compare them with these funda- 
mental principles, introduced into the state governments for the pur- 
pose of limiting the exercise of the legislative power, and which the 
constitution of New Hampshire expresses with great fulness and 
accuracy. 

It is not too much to assert, that the legislature of New Hamp- 
shire would not have been competent to pass the acts in question, 
and to make them binding on the {)laintiffs without their assent, even 
if there had been, in the constitution of New Hampshire, or of the 
United States, no special restriction on their power; l^ecause those 
acts are not tlie exercise of a power properly legislative.* Their 
object and effect is to take away, from one, rights, property, and 
franchises, and to grant them to another. This is not the exercise 
of a legislative power. To justify the taking away of vested rights, 
there must be a forfeiture; to adjudge upon and declare which, is the 
proper province of the judiciary. Attainder and confiscation are 
acts of sovereign power; not acts of legislation. The British par- 
liament, among other unlimited powers, claims that of altering and 
vacatino- charters; not as an act of urdiiiary legislation, but of un- 

*^ t'aUler el iix. v. Bull :id Dulliis 3«6. 



115 

controlled authority. Tt is theoretically omnipotent. Yet, in mod- 
ern times, it has attempted the exercise of this power very rarely. 
[n a celebrated distance, those who asserted this power in parlia- 
ment, vindicated its exercise only in a case, in which it could he 
shown, 1st, That the charter in question was a charter of political 
power; 2. That there was a great and overruling state necessity, 
justifying the violation of the charter. 3. That the charter had been 
abused, and justly forfeited.* The bill affecting this charter did 
not pass. Its history is well known. The act which afterwards did 
pass, passed tvith the assent of the corporation. Even in the worst 
times this power of parliament to repeal and rescind charters, has 
not often been exercised. The illegal proceedings in the reign of 
Charles II. were undercolor of law. Judgments of forfeiture were 
obtained in the courts. Such was the case of the quo warranto 
against the city of London, and the proceedings by which the char- 
ter of Massachusetts was vacated. 

The legislature of New Hampshire has no more power over the 
rights of the plaintiffs than existed, somewhere, in some department 
of government, before the revolution. The British parliament could 
not have annulled or revoked this grant as an act of ordinary legis- 
lation. If it had done it at all, it could only have been in virtue of 
that sovereign power, called omnipotent, which does not belong to 
any legislature in the United States. The legislature of New 
Hampshire has the same power over this charter, which belonged to 
the king, who granted it; and no more. By the law of England the 
power to create corporations is apart of the royal prerogative. ■!■ 
By the revolution, this power may be considered as having devolved 
on the legislature of the state, and it has accordingly been exer- 
cised by the legislature. But the king cannot abolish a corporation, 
or new model it, or alter its powers without its assent. This is 
the acknowledged and well known doctrine of the common law. 
" Whatever might have been the notion in former times," says lord 
Mansfield, "it is most certain now, that the corporations of the uni- 
versities are lay corporations; and that the crown cannot take away 
from them any rights that have been formerly subsisting in them 
under old charters or prescriptive usage. "j After forfeiture duly 
found, the king may regrant the franchises; but a grant of franchises 
already granted, and of which no forfeiture has been found, is void. 

Corporate franchises can only be forfeited by trial and judgment. t^ 
In case of a new charter or grant to an existing corporation, 
it may accept or reject it as it pleases. || It may accept such part 
of the grant as it chooses, and reject the rest.** In the very na- 
ture of things, a charter cannot be forced upon any body. No one 
can be compelled to accept a grant; and without acceptance, the 
grant is necessarily void."!"!" It cannot be pretended that the legis- 
lature, as successor to the king in this part of his prerogative, has 
any power to revoke, vacate or alter this charter. If, therefore, the 

* Annual Regr. 1784, p. 160.— Parlia. Re^r. 1783.— Mr. Burke's Speech on Mr. Fox's 
E. I. Bill. Burke's Works— 2 V,.l. p. 414. 417. 467. 468. 48C. 

1 1 Black. 472, 473. 1 3 Burr. 16.56. § 3 T. R. 24-!. Kin? vs. Pasmoro. 

II Kini; vs. Vice ('hancellor of ("auiliridse, 3. liurr. 16.56. 3 T. U. 240. — Lonl KeiiyoO 

**■ Iiliiii 1661, ami Kin^ \s. I'asiudre, ubi supra. 

ft Ellis vs. Marshall, 2 Mass. Rep. 277. 1 Kyil. on corporation.-; 65. — 6. 



116 

legislature has not this power by any specific grant contained in the 
constitution; nor as included in its ordinary legislative powers; nor 
by reason of its succession to the prerogatives of Uie crown in this 
particular; on what ground would the authority to pass these acts 
rest; even if there were no prohibitory clauses in the constitution and 
the bill of rights? 

But there are prohibitions in the constitution and bill of rights of 
]New Hampshire, introduced for the purpose of limiting the legisla- 
tive power, and protecting the rights and property of the citizens. 
One prohibition is " that no person shall be deprived of his properly, 
iminimilies or privileges, pid oid of the protection of the law, or deprived 
of his life, liberty or estate, bid by judgment of his peers or the law of the 
land.'''' 

In the opinion, however, which was given in the court below, it is 
denied that the trustees under the charter, had any property, immu- 
nity, liberty or privilege, in this corporation within the meaning of 
this prohibition in the bill of rights. It is said that it is a. public cor- 
poration, and public property. That the trustees have no greater in- 
terest in it, than any other individuals. That it is not private proper- 
ty, which they can sell, or transmit to their heirs; and that therefore 
they have no interest in it. That their office is a public trust like 
that of the governor, or a judge; and that they have no more concern 
in the property of the college, than the governor in the property of 
the state, or than the judges in the tines which they impose on the 
culprits at their bar. That it is nothing to them, whether their pow- 
ers shall be extended or lessened; any more than it is to their hon- 
ors, whether their jurisdiction shall be enlarged or diminished. It 
is necessary, therefore, to inquire into the true nature and charac 
ter of the corporation, which was created by the charter of 1769. 

There are divers sorts of corporations; and it may be safely aa 
mitted that the legislature has more power over some than others.* 
Some corporations are for government and political arrangement; 
such for example as cities, counties and towns in New England. 
These may be changed and modified as public convenience may 
require, due regard being always had to the rights of property. Of 
such corporations, all who live within the limits are of course oblig- 
ed to be members, and to submit to the duties which the law impo- 
ses on them as such. Other civil corporations are for the advance- 
ment of trade and business, such as banks, insurance companies, 
and the like. These are created not by general law, but usually by 
grant. Their constitution is special. It is such as the legislature 
sees fit to give, and the grantees to accept. 

The cor[)oration in question is not a civil, although it is a lay cor- 
poration. It is an eleemosynary corporation. It is a private charity, 
originally founded and endowed by an individual, with a charter 
obtained for it at his request, for the better administration of his 
charily. " The eleemosynary sort of corporations, are such as are 
constituted for the perpetual distributions of the free alms or bounty 
of the founder of them, to such persons as he has directed. Of 
this are all hospitals for the maintenance of the poor, sick and im 
ootent; and all colleges both in our universities and out of them."t 
* 1 Wooddesoii 474. 1 Black. 467. t 1 I'liick. 471. 



117 

Eleemosynary corporations are for the management of private 

property according to the will of the donors. They are private cor- 
porations. A college is as much a private corporation, as an hos- 
pital; especially, a college, founded as this was, by private bounty. 
A college is a charity. — '^ The establishment of learning," says lord 
Hardvvicke, " is a charity, and so considered in the statute of Eliza- 
beth. A devise to a college, for their benefit, is a laudable charihj, 
and deserves encouragement."* 

The legal signiticaHon of a charify is derived chiefly from the 
statute 43 Eliz. ch. 4. " Those purposes," says sir William Grant, 
"are considered charitable which that statute enumerates."! ^c^- 
leo-es are enumerated, as charities in that statute. The government, 
iifthese cases, lends its aid to perpetuate the beneficent intention of 
the donor, by granting a charter, under which his private charity 
shall continue to be dispensed, after his death. This is done either by 
incorporating the objects of the charity, as i^or instance, the scholars 
in a college, or the poor in an hospital; or by incorporating those 
who are to be governors, or trustees of the charity.J In cases of 
the first sort the founder is, by the common law, visitor. In early 
times it became a maxim, that he who gave the property, might 
regulate it in future. Cujus est dare, ejus est disponcre. This right 
of visitation descended from the founder to his heir, as a right of 
property, and precisely as his other property went to his heir; and 
in default of heirs, it went to the king, as all other property goes to 
the king for the want of heirs. — The right of visitation arises from 
the property. It grows out of the endowment. The founder may, if 
he please, part with it, at the time when he establishes the charity, 
and may vest it in others. Therefore if he chooses that governors, 
trustees or overseers should be appointed in the charter, he may 
cause it to be done, and his power of visitation will be transferred to 
them, instead of descending to his heirs. The persons thus assign- 
ed or appointed by the founder will be visitors, with all the powers 
of the founder, in exclusion of his heir.§ The right;of visitation 
then accrues to them, as a matter of property, by the giff, transfer 
or appointment of the founder. This is a private right, which they 
can assert in all legal modes, and in which they have the same pro- 
tection of the law as in all other rights. As visitors they may make 
rules, ordinances and statutes, and alter and repeal them, as far as 
permitted so to do by the charter. jj Although the charter proceeds 
from the crown, or the government, it is considered as the will of 
the donor. It is obtained at his request. He imposes it as the rule 
which is to prevail in the dispensation of his bounty in all future 
times. The king, or government, which grants the charter is not 
thereby the founder, but he who furnishes the funds. The gift of 
the revenues is the foundation.** The leading case on this subject 
is Phillips vs.3ury, [reported in 1 Lord Raymond 5. — Comb. 265. 
—Holt 7f5.— 1 Show. 360.— 4 Mod. f06.— Skinn. 447.] This 
was an ejectment, brought to recover the rectory house, &c. oi^ Ex- 
eter College, in Oxford. The question was whether the plaintiff or 
defendant was legal rector. Exeter College was founded by an in- 

* 1 Ves. 537. t9 Vcs. .Inn. 405. :j: 1 Won.l. 174. 

^ 1 Black. 471. || 2 Tcnn lit^). 350—1. ** 1 Uliu k. 4S0. 



118 

dividual, and incorporated by a charter granted by Queen Elizabeth. 
The controversy turned upon the power of the visitor, and in the 
discussion of the cause, the nature of college charters and corpo- 
rations was very fully considered. Lord Holt's judgment, copied 
from his o\\'n manuscript, is in 2 Term Rep. 346. The following is 
an extract: "That we may the better apprehend the nature of a 
visitor, we are to consider, that there are in law two sorts of corpo- 
rations aggregate: such as are for public government, and such as 
are for private charity. Those that are for the public government 
of a town, city, mystery, or the like, being for public advantage, 
are to be governed according to the laws of the land; if they make 
any particular private laws and constitutions, the validity and jus- 
tice of them is examinable in the king's courts; of these there are 
no particular private founders, and consequently no particular visit- 
or; there are no patrons of these; therefore if no provision be in 
the charter how the succession shall continue, the law sui)plieth the 
defect of that constitution, and saith it shall be by election; as may- 
or, aldermen, common council, and the like. But private and par- 
ticular corporations for charity, founded and endowed by private 
persons, are subject to the private government of those who erect 
them; and, therefore, if there be no visitor appointed by the found- 
er, the law appoints the founder and his heirs to be visitors, who 
are to act and proceed according to the particular laws and consti- 
tutions assigned them by the founder. It is now admitted on all 
hands, that the founder is patron, and, as founder, is visitor, if no 
particular visitor be assigned. So that patronage and visitation are 
necessary consequents one upon another; for this visitatorial pow- 
er was not introduced by any canons or constitutions ecclesiastical 
(as was said by a learned gentleman whom I have in my eye, in his 
argument of this case:) it is an appointment of law; it ariseth from 
the property which the founder had in the lands assigned to support 
the charity; and as he is the author of the charity, the law gives 
him and his heirs a visitatorial power, that is, an autnority to inspect 
the actions and regulate the behavior of the members that partake 
of the charity; for it is tit the members that are endowed, and that 
have the charity bestowed upon them, should not be left to them- 
selves, but ])ursue the intent and design of him that bestowed it up- 
on them. JVbjo indeed, ivhere the poor, or those that receive the charity, 
are not incorporated, but there arc certain trustees icho dispose of the 
charitij, there is no visitor; because the interest of the revenue is not vest- 
ed in the poor that have the benefit of the charitij, but they are subject to 
the orders and directions of the trustees. But where they who are to 
enjoy the benefit of the charity are incorporated, there to prevent 
all perverting of the charity, or to compose differences that may 
happen anaong them, there is by law a visitatorial power; and it be- 
ing a creature of the founder's own, it is reason that he and his 
heirs sliould have that power, unless by the founder it is vested in 
some other. Now there is no manner of dift'erence between a col- 
lege and an hospital, except oiily in degree; an hospital is for those 
thut are poor, and mean, and low, and sickly: a college is for anoth- 
er sort of indigent persons; but it hath another intent, to study in, 
and breed up persons in the world, that have no otherwise to live; 



119 

but still it is as much within the reasons as hospitals. And if in an 
hospital the master and poor are incorporated, it is a college having 
a common seal to act by, although it hath not the name of a college, 
(which always supposeth a corporation) because it is of an inferior 
degree; and in the one case and in the other there must be a visitor, 
either the founder and his heirs, or one appointed by him; and both 
are eleemosynary." Lord Holt concludes his whole argument by 
again repeating, that that college was a private corporation, and that 
the founder had a right to appoint a visitor, and to give him such 
power as he saw fit.* 

The learned Bishop Stillingfleet's argument in the same cause as 
a member of the house of lords, when it was there heard, exhibits 
very clearly the nature of colleges and similar corporations. It is 
to the following eiiect. " That this absolute and conclusive power 
of visitors, is no more than the law hath appointed in other cases, 
upon commissions of charitable uses: that the common law, and not 
any ecclesiastical canons, do place the power of visitation in the 
founder and his heirs, nnless he settle it upon others: that although 
corporations for public government be subject to the courts of ^^ est- 
minster-Hall, which have no particular, or special visitors; yet cor- 
porations tor charity, founded and endowed by private persons, are 
subject to the rule and government of those that erect them; but 
where the persons to whom the charity is given are not incorporated, 
there is no such visitatorial power, because the interest of the reve- 
nue is not invested in them; but where they are, the right of visita- 
tion ariseth from the Ibundation, and the founder may convey it to 
whom and in vhat manner he pleases; and the visitor acts as founder, and 
by the same authority which he had, and consequently is no more account- 
able than he had been: that the king by his charter can make a soci- 
ety to be incorporated so as to have the rights belonging to persons, 
as to legal capacities: that colleges, although founded by private per- 
sons, are yet incorporated by the king's charter; but although the 
kings by their charter made the colleges to be such in law, that is, 
to be legal corporations, yet they left to the particular founders au- 
thority to appoint what statutes they thought fit for the regulation of 
them. And not only the statutes, but the appointment of visitors 
was left to them, arid the manner of government, and the several 
conditions, on which any persons were to be made or continue par- 
takers of their bounty .-f These opinions received the sanction of 
the house of lords, and they seem to be settled and undoubted law. 
Where there is a charter, vesting proper powers in trustees, or gov- 
ernors, they are visitors; and there is no control in anybody else; 
except only that the courts of equity or of law will interfere so far as 
to preserve the revenues and prevent the perversion of the funds and 
to keep the visitors within their prescribed bounds. " If there be a 
charter with proper powers, the charity must be regulated in the man- 
ner prescribed by the charter. There is no ground tor the control- 
ling interposition of the courts of chancery. The interposition of 
the courts therefore, in those instances in which the charities were 
founded on charters or by act of pai iiament, and a visitor, or governor 
and trustees appointed, must be referred to the genernl jurisdiction 

* 1 Li.icl R;iv. 9. t ^ee A|)|icii(lix No. S. 1 Bmirs Ei-<lcs=. Law 44:3. 



120 

of the courts in all cases in which a trust conferred appears to have 
been abused, and not to an original rigid to dh-ect the mana Yemeni of 
the chanty, or the conduct of the governors or trustees.''^* — " The orig- 
inal of all visitatorud power is the property of the donor, and the 
power every one has to dispose, direct and regulate his own proper- 
ty; like the case of patronage; cujus est dare, »S-c. Therefore, if either 
the crown or the subject creates an eleemosjinary foundation, and vests the 
charity in the persons who are to receive the benefit of it, since a contest 
might arise about the government of it, the law allotos the founder or his 
heirs, or the jjerson specially appointed by him to be visitor, to determine 
concerning his own creature. If the charity is not vested in the persons, 
who are to partake, but in trustees for their benefit, no visitor can arise 
bij impliccdion, but the trustees have that power. '''''{ 
' " There is nothing better established," says lord commissioner 
Eyre, " than that this court does not entertain a general jurisdiction, 
or regulate and control charities established by charter. There the 
establishment is fixed and determined; and the court has no power 
to vary it. If the governors established for the regulation of it, are 
not those who have the management of the revenue, this court has 
no jurisdiction, and if it is ever so much abused as far as it respects 
the jurisdiction of this court, it is without remedy; but if those es- 
tablished as governors, have also the management of the revenues, 
this court does assume a jurisdiction of necessity, so far as they are 
to be considered as trustees of the revenue. "J 

" The foundations of colleges," says lord Mansfield, " are to be 
considered in two views, viz. as they are corporations and as they 
are eleemosynary. As eleemosynary, they are the creatures of the 
founder; he may delegate his power, either generally or specially; 
he may prescribe particular modes and manners, as to the exercise 
of part of it. If he makes a general visitor, (as by the general 
words visitator sit) the person so constituted has all incidental power; 
but he may be restrained as to particular instances. The founder 
may appoint a special visitor for a particular purpose and no further. 
The founder may make a general visitor; and yet appoint an inferior 
particular power, to be executed without going to the visitor in the 
first instance. "§ And even if the king l)e founder, if he grant a 
chartter, incorporating trustees and governors, they are visitors, and 
the king cannot visit. || A subsequent donation, or engrafted fel- 
lowship, falls under the same general visitatorial power, if not other- 
wise specially provided.** 

In New England, and perhaps throughout the United States, 
eleemosynary corporations have been generally estaljlished in the 
latter mode; that is, by incorporating governors, or trustees, and 
vesting in them the right of visitation. Small variations may have 
been in some instances adopted; as in the case of Harvard College, 
where some power of inspection is given to the overseers, but not 
strictly speaking, a visitatorial pow^r, which still belongs, it is appre- 

* 2 Fonb. 203 — 6. t 1 ^ c^- 472. Green vs. Riitlieifi)itli, jier Lord Haniwicke. 
X Ailonify Geiu r;il vs. Foiin.lliiii,' llospitiil, 2 Ves. Jiinr. 47. \'ide also 2 Kyd on Cor- 
poratiiins. l'95. ('ooix-r's E(|uity I'leadinij, 2,92. 

§ Si. Jolin's CJiillege, Caiiil)rid','e v.«. 'ruiliii£;t«ii, 1 Burr. 200. 

I| Attorney General vs. Midiiletoii, 2 Ves. 328. 

♦* Green'vs. Rulherlorlli, ulii supra. St. JohnV College, vs. 'J'odington, ulji supra. 



121 

hended to the fellows, or members of the corporation. In general, 
there are many cl uors. A charter is obtained, comprising tliem all, 
or some of them, and such others as they choose to include, with 
the right of appointing their successors. They are thus the visitors 
of their own charity and appoint others, such as they may see lit, 
to exercise the same office in time to come. All such corporations 
are private. The case before the court is clearly that of an elee- 
mosynary corporation. It is, in the strictest legal sense a private 
charity. In King vs. St. Catherine's Hall,* that college is called 
a private eleemosipumj huj corporation. It was endowed by a private 
founder, and incorporated by letters patent. And in the same man- 
ner was Dartmouth College founded and incorporated. Dr. Whee- 
lock is declared by the charter to be its founder. It was established 
by him, on funds contributed and collected by himself 

As such founder, he had a right of visitation, which he assigned to 
the trustees, and they received it by his consent and appointment, 
and held it under the charter.f He appointed these trustees visit- 
ors, and in that respect to take place of his hen-; as he might have 
appointed devisees, to take his estate instead of his heir. Little, 
probably, did he think at that time, that the legislature would ever 
take away this property and these privileges, and give them to 
others. Little did he suppose, that this charter secured to him and 
his successors no legal rights. Little did the other donors think so. 
If they had, the college would have been, what the university is 
now, a thing upon paper, existing only in name. 

The numerous academies in New England have been established 
substantially in the same manner. They hold their property by the 
same tenure, and no other. Nor has Harvard College any surer 
title than Dartmouth College. It may, to-day, have more friends; 
but to-morrow it may have more enemies. Its legal rights are the 
same. vSo also of Yale College; and indeed of all the others. 
When the legislature gives to these insthutions, it may and does 
accompany its grants with such conditions as it pleases. The grant 
of lands by the legislature of New Hampshire to Dartmouth Col- 
lege, in 1789, was accompanied with various conditions. When 
donations are made, by the legislature, or others, to a charity al- 
ready existing, without any condition, or the specitication of any new 
use, the donation follows the nature of the charity. Hence the 
doctrine, that all eleemosynary corporations are private bodies. 
They are founded bv private persons, and on private property. The 
public cannot be charitable in these institutions. It is not the 
money of the public, but of private persons, which is dispensed. It 
may be public, that is general, in its uses and advantages; and the 
state may very laudably add contributions of its own to the funds; 
but it is still private in the tenure of the property, and in the right 
of administering the funds. 

If the doctrine laid down by lord Holt, and the house of lords in 
Phillips vs. Bury, and recognised and established in all the other 
cases, be correct, the property of this college was private property; 
it was vested in the trustees by the charter, and to he administered 
by them, according to the will of the founder and donors as ex- 
* 4 Term Rep. 233. t Black, iibi :supia. 

16 L 



122 

pressed in the charter. They were also visilors of the charity, 
in the most ample sense. Thetj had therefore, as they contend, 
privileges, propeiiij, and immiiniiies, within the true meaning of the 
bill of rights. They had rights and still have them, which they 
can assert against the legislature, as well as against other wrong- 
doers. It makes no ditlerence, that the estate is holden for cer- 
tain trusts. The legal estate is still theirs. They have a right 
in the property, and they have a right of visiting and superintend- 
ing the trust; and this is an object of legal protection, as much as 
any other right. The charter declares that the powers conferred on 
the trustees are " privileges, advantages, lilierties, and immunities;" 
and that they shall be forever holden by them and their successors. 
The New Hampshire bill of rights declares that no one shall be 
deprived of his " property, privileges or immunities," but by judg- 
ment of his peers, or the law of the land. The argument on the 
other side is, that although these terms may mean something in the 
bill of rights, they mean nothing in this charter. But they are terms 
of legal signification, and very properly used in the charter. They 
are equivalent with franchises. Blackstone says that franchise and 
liberty are used as synonymous terms. And alter enumerating oth- 
er liberties and franchises, he says, " it is likewise a franchise for a 
number of persons to be incorporated and subsist as a body politic; 
with a power to maintain perpetual succession and do other corpo- 
rate acts : a7id each individual member of such a corporation is also said 
to have a franchise or freedom. ^^* 

Liberties is the term used in magna charfa as including franchises, 
privileges, immunities, and all the rights" which belong to that class 
Professor Sullivan says, the term signifies the " privileges that some 
of the sul)jects, whether single persons or bodies corporate, have 
above others by the lawful grant of the king; as the chattels of fel- 
ons or outlaws, and the lands and privileges of corporations.^'''^ 

The privilege, then, of being a member of a corporation, under 
a lawful grant, and of exercising the rights and powers of sucli 
member, is such a privilege, liberty or franchise, as has been the ob- 
ject of legal protection, and the subject of a legal interest, from the 
time of magna charta to the present moment. The plaintiffs have 
such an interest in this corporation, individually, as they could as- 
sert and maintain in a court of law, not as agents of the public, 
but in their own right. Each trustee has a franchise, and if he be 
disturl)ed in the enjoyment of it, he would have redress, on appeal- 
ing to the law, as promptly as for any other injury. If the other 
trustees should conspire against any one of them to prevent his 
equal right and voice in the^appointinent of a president or professor, 
or in the passing of any statute or ordinance of the college, he 
would be entitled to his action, for depriving him of his frnnchise. 
It Jiiakes no difierence, that this property is to be holden and admin- 
istered, and tiiese franchises exorcised for the purp^ose of difiiisiiig 
learning. No principle and no case establishes any such distinc- 
tion. The public may be benefitted by the use of this property. 
But this does not change the nature of the property, or tli-e rights 
of the owners. The object of the charter maybe public good; so 

* 2 Black. Com. 37. t >^"ll- -^1*1 Lcci. 



123 

it is in all other corporations; and this would as well justify the re- 
sumption or violation of the grant in any other case as in this. In 
the case of an advowson, the use is public, and the right cannot be 
turned to any private bcnelit or emolument. It is nevertheless a 
legal private right, and the jjroperly of the owner, as emphatically as 
his freehold. The rights and privileges of trustees, visitors, or gov- 
ernors of incorporated colleges, stand on the same foundation. 
They are so considered, both by lord Holt and lord Hardwicke.* 

To contend that the rights of the plaintiffs may be taken away, 
because they derive from them no pecuniary benefit, or private 
emolument, "or because they cannot be transmitted to their heirs, or 
would not be assets to pay their debts, is taking an extremely narrow 
view of the subject. According to this notion, the case would be 
dirterent, if, in the charter, they had stipulated for a commission on 
the disbursement of the funds; and they have ceased to have a.ny in- 
terest in the property, because they have undertaken to administer 
it gratuitously. 

It cannot be necessary to say much in refutation of the idea, that 
there cannot be a legal interest, or ownership, in anything which does 
not yield a pecuniary profit; as if the law regarded no rights but the 
rights of money, and of visible tangible property. Of what nature 
are all rights of suffrage ? No elector has a particular personal in- 
terest; but each has a legal right, to be exercised at his own discre- 
tion, and it cannot be taken away from him. The exercise of this 
right directly and very materially aflects the public; much more so 
than the exercise of the privileges of a trustee of this college. 
Consequences of the utmost magnitude may sometimes depend on 
the exercise of the right of suflrage by one or a few electors. No- 
body was ever yet heard to contend, however, that on that account 
the public might take away the right or impair it. This notion ap- 
pears to be borrowed from no better source than the repudiated doc- 
trine of tire three judges in the Aylesbury case.t That was an ac- 
tion against a returning ofticer for refusing the plaintiff's vote, in 
the election of a member of parliament. — Three of the judges of 
the king's bench held, that the action could not be maintained, be- 
cause among other objections, '^ il was not any mailer of profit, either 
in presenti, or infuturoy It would not enrich the plaintift; in prcsen 
ti, nor would it, infntiiro, go to his heirs, or answer to pay his debts. 
But lord Holt and the house of lords were of another opinion. The 
judgment of the three judges was reversed, and the doctrine they 
held, having been exploded for a century, seems now for the first 
time to be revived. 

Individuals have a right to use their own property for purposes of 
benevolence, either towards the public, or towards other individuals. 
They have a right to exercise this benevolence in such lawful man- 
ner as they may choose; and when the government has induced and 
excited it, by eonlracling to give perpetuity to the stipulated manner of 
exercising it,\o rescind this contract, and seize on the property, is 
not la\v,'but violence. Whether the state will grant these franchises, 
and under what conditions it will grant them, it decides for itself. 

* Philli|TS vs. Bury. — (Jrcon vs. Rnlherfortli, ubi supra. — Vide also 2 Bkick. 21. 
t Abhby vs. Wliite, 2 Lord lUy. 938. 



124 

But when once granted, the constitution holds them to be sacred, 
till forfeited for just cause. 

That all property, of which the use may be beneficial to the |nib- 
lic, belongs thereJore to the public, is quite a new doctrine. It has 
no precedent, and is supported by no known principle. Dr. Wheelock 
n)ight liavc answered his purposes, in this case, by executing a 
private deed of trust. — He might have conveyed his property to 
trustees, for precisely such uses as are described in this charter. 
Indeed it appears, that he had contemplated the establishing of his 
school in that manner, and had made his will, and devised the prop- 
erty to the same persons who were afterwards appointed trustees in 
the charter. Many literary and other charitable institutions are 
founded in that manner, and the trust is renewed, and conferred on 
other persons, from time to time, as occasion may require. In such 
a case, no lawyer would or could say that the legislature might di- 
vest the trustees, constituted by deed or will, seize upon the j)rop- 
erty, and give it to other persons, for other purposes. And does 
the granting of a charter, which is only done to perpetuate the trust 
in a more convenient manner make any difference.^ Does or can 
this change the nature of the charity, and turn it into a public polit- 
ical corporation? — Happily we are not without authority on this 
point. It has been considered and adjudged. Lord Hardwicke 
says, in so many words, " the charter of the crown cannot make a 
charity more or less public, but only more permanent than it would 
otherwise be.* 

The granting of the corporation is but making the trust perpetual, 
and does not alter the nature of the charity. The very object sought 
in obtaining such charter, and in giving property to such a cori>o- 
ration, is to make and keep it private property, and to clothe it with 
all the security and inviolability of private property. The intent is, 
that there shall be a legal private ownership, and that the legal own- 
ers shall maintain and protect the property, for the benefit of those 
for whose use it was designed. Who ever endowed the public? 
Who ever appointed a legislature to administer his charity? Or 
who ever heard, before, that a girt to a coUcs;e, or hospilui, or an 
asylvm, was, in reality, nothing but a gift to the state. 

The state of Vermont is a principal donor to Dartmouth College. 
The lands given lie in that state. This appears in the special ver- 
dict. Is Vermont to be considered as having intended a gift to the 
state of New Hampshire in this case; as it has been said is to be 
the reasonable construction of all donations to the college? The 
legislature of New Hampshire affects to represent the public, and 
therefore claims a right to control all property destined to public use. 
What hinders Vermont from considering herself equally the repre- 
sentative of the public, and from resuming her grants, at her own 
pleasure? Her right to do so is less doubtful than the power of 
New Hampshire to i)ass the laws in question. 

In University vs. Foyt the supreme court of North Carolina 
pronounced unconstitutional and void, a law repealing a grant to the 
University of North Carolina; although that university was originally 
erected and endowed by a statute of the_ state. That case Avas a 

* 2 Alk. b7. Auunicy GtnLial vs. Pcuice. t 2 Haywood's Uep. 



125 

grant of lands, and the court decided that it coidd not be resumed. 
This is the grant of a power and capacity to hold lands. Where is 
the difference of the cases, upon principle ? 

In Terrett vs. Taylor* this court decided, that a legislative grant 
or continuation of lands, for the purposes of moral and religious 
instruction, could no more be rescinded than other grants. The 
nature of the use was not holden to make any difference. A grant 
to a parsh or church, for the purposes which have been mentioned, 
cannot be distinguished, in respect to the title it confers, from a 
grant to a college for the promotion of piety and learning. To the 
same purpose may be cited the case of Pawlett vs. Clark. The 
state of Vermont, by statute in 1794, granted to the respective 
towns in that state, certain glebe lands lying within those towns for 
the sole use and support of religious worship. In 1799, an act was pas- 
sed to repeal the act of 1794; but this court declared, that the act of 
1794, " so far as it granted the glebes to the towns, coidd not after- 
wards be repealed by the legislature, so as to divest the rights of the towns 
under the grant. '''''\ 

It will be for the other side to show, that the nature of the tise, 
decides the question, whether the legislature has power to resume 
its grants. It will be for those, who maintain such a doctrine, to 
show the jjrinciples and cases upon which it rests. It will be for 
them also to fix the limits and boundaries of their doctrine, and to 
show, what are and what are not, such uses as to give the legisla- 
ture this power of resumption and revocation. And to lurnish an 
answer to the cases cited, it will be for them further to show, that a 
grant for the use and support of religious toorship, stands on other 
ground than a grant for the promotion of pietij and learning. 

I hope enough has been said to show, that the trustees possessed 
vested liberties, privileges, and immunities, under this* charter; and 
that such liberties, privileges and immunities, being once lawfully 
obtained and vested, are as inviolable as any vested rights of prop- 
erty whatever. — Rights to do certain acts, such, for instance, as the 
visitation and superintendence of a college and the appointment of 
its officers, may surely be rested rights, to all legal intents, as com- 
pletely as the right to possess property. A late learned judge of 
this court has said, when I say that a right is vested in a citizen, I 
mean that he has the power to do certain actions; or to possess certain 
things; according to the law of the land. J 

If such be the true nature of the plaintiffs' interests under this 
charter, what are the articles in the New Hampshire bill of rights 
which these acts infringe.'' 

They infringe the second, article; which says, that the citizens of 
the state have a right to hold and possess property. The plaintiffs 
had a legal property in this charter; and they had acquired property 
under it. The acts deprive them of both. They impair and take 
away the charter; and they appropriate the property to new uses, 
against their consent. The plaintiffs cannot now hold the property 
acquired by themselves, and which this article says they have a 
right to hold. 

* 9 Cranch 43. t 9 Cniiich 292. t 3 l);il. 394 



126 

They infringe the twentieih article. By that article it is declared, 
that in questions of property, fhcrc is a rigid to trial. The plaintiffs 
are divested, wilhont trial or judgment. 

They infringe the tu'iniy-ihird article. It is therein declared, that 
no retrospective laws shall be jjassed. This article bears directly on 
the case. These acts must be deemed to be retrospective, within the 
settled construction of that term. What a retrospective law is, has 
been decided on the construction of this very article, in the circuit 
court for the first circuit. The learned judge of that circuit, says, 
" every statute which takes away, or impairs, vested rights, acquired 
under existing laws, must be deemed retrospective."* That all 
such laws are retrospective, was decided also in the case of Dash 
vs. Van Kleek| where a most learned judge quotes this article from 
the constitution of New Hampshire, with manifest approbation, as 
a plain and clear expression of those fundamental and unalterable 
principles of justice, which must lie at the foundation of every free 
and just system of laws. Can any man deny that the plaintiffs had 
rjo7(/.s, under the charter, which were legally vested., and that by 
these acts, those rights are impaired! 

" It is a principle in the English law," says chief justice Kent, 
m the case last cited, " as ancient as the law itself, that a statute, 
even of its omnipotent paaliament, is not to have a retrospective 
effect. JYora constilutio futnris forman} imponere debet, et mn praten- 
tis.% The maxim in Bracton, was probably taken from the civil law, 
for we find in that system the same principle, that the lawgiver can- 
not alter his mind to the prejudice of a vested right. JVemo potest 
mutare concilium suum in atlcrius injuriam.% This maxim of Papin- 
ian is general in its terms, but Dr. Taylorjl applies it directly as a 
restriction upon the lawgiver, and a declaration in the code leaves 
no doubt as to the sense of the civil law. Lcp^es et constitutiones fiitu- 
ris certiim est dare formam negotiis, non ad facta prmterita revocaii, nisi 
nominalim, et de prceterito tempore, et adhiic peiidentibris ncgotiis cantvm 
sjV.1T This passage, according to the best interpretation of the 
civilians, relates not merely to future suits, but to future, as contra- 
distinguished from past contracts and vested rights.** If is, indeed, 
admitted that the prince may enact a retrospective law, provided it 
be done expresshj; for the will of the prince under the despotism of 
the Roman Emperors was paramount to every obligation. Great 
latitude was anciently allowed to legislative expositions of" statutes; 
for the separation of the judicial from the legislative power was not 
then di.stinctly known or prescril)ed. The prince was in the habit 
of interpreting his own laws for particular occasions. This was 
called the Inierlocvlio Principis; and this, according to Ruber's de- 
finition, was, qnando principcs inter partes loqumitiir ct jus dictmt.'\'\ 
No correct civilian, and especially no proud admirer of the ancient 
republic, (if any such then existed) could have reflected on this inter- 
ference with private rights and pending suits without disgust and in- 
dignation; and we are rather surprised to find that under the violent 

* 2 Gal. 103. Sorietv vs. Wlieoler. t 7 Jolmson's Rep. 477. 

t lii acton Lil). 4. lol." 228. 2n(l Inst. 292. § Dis- 50. 17. 75. 

II Elfmcnt-^ nftlic CivilT.aw 168. ITCud. 1. 14. 7. 

**• IVrezii I'ni'lcct. h. I. tt l^'ielect Juris Civ. vol. 2. 545. 



127' 

and irregular genius of the Roman government, the principle be- 
fore us should have been acknowledged and obeyed to the extent in 
which we find it. The fact shows that it must be founded in the 
clearest justice. Our case is happily very different from that of 
the subjects of Jitstiman. With us, the power of the lawgiver is 
limited and defined; the judicial is regarded as a distinct, indepen- 
dent power: private rights have been better understood and more 
exalted in public estimation, as well as secured by provisions dicta- 
ted by the spirit of. freedom, and unknown to the civil law. Our 
constitutions do not admit the power assumed by the Roman prince, 
and the principle we are considering is now to be regarded as 
sacred." 

These acts infringe also the thirty-seventh article of the constitu- 
tion of New Hampshire; which says, that the powers of govern- 
ment shall be kept separate. By these acts, the legislature assumes 
to exercise a judicial power. It declares a forfeiture, and resumes 
franchises, once granted, without trial or hearing. 

If the constitution be not altogether waste paper, it has restrained 
the power of the legislature, in these particulars. If it has any 
meaning, it is, that the legislature shall pass no act directly and 
manifestly impairing private'property and private privileges. It shall 
not judge, by act. It shall not decide, by act. It shall not deprive, 
by act. But it shall leave all these things to be tried and adjudged, 
by the law of the land. 

The fifteenth article has been referred to before. It declares that 
no one shall be " deprived of his property, immunities or privileges, 
but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land." Not- 
withstanding the light in which the learned judges in New Hamp- 
shire viewed the rights of the plaintifls under the charter, and which 
has been before adverted to, it is found to be admitted in their opin- 
ion, that those rights are privileo;es within the meaning of this fifteenth 
article of the bill of rights. Having quoted that article, they say: 
"that the right to manage the affairs of this college, is a privilege 
within the meaning of this clause of the bill of rights, is not to be 
doubted." In my humble opinion this surrenders the point. To 
resist the effect of this admission, however, the learned judges add 
— " But how a privilege can be protected from the operation of the 
law of the land by a cfause in the constitution, declaring that it shall 
n(.t hv taken away, b)if by the law of the land, is not very easily 
understood." — This answer goes on the ground,^ that the acts in 
question are laws of the land, within the meaning of the constitution. 
If they be so, the argument drawn from this article is fully answer- 
ed. If they be not so, it being admitted that the i)laintifFs' rigiits 
are "^jrnn/fo-es," within the meaning of the article, the argument is 
not answered, and the article is infringed by the arts. Are then 
these acts of the legislature, which affect only particular persons 
and their particular privileges, laws of the land? liOt this question 
be answered by the text of Blackstone. " And first it (i. e. law) is 
a rule: not a transient sudden order from a superior to or concern- 
ing a particular person; but soinelhing permanent, uniform, and 
universal. Therefore a particular act of the legislature to confis- 
cate the goods of Titius, or to attaint him of high treason, does not 



128 

enter into the idea of a municipal law: for the operation of this act 
is spent upon Titius only, and has no relation to the community in 
general; it is rather a sentence than a law."* Lord Coke is equally 
decisive and emphatic. Citing and commenting on the celebrated 
29th chap, of Magna Charla, he says, " no man shall be disseized, 
Stc. unless it be by the lawful judgment, that is, verdict of equals, 
or by the law of the land, that is, (to speak it once for all,) by the 
due course and process of km.'\ Have the plaintiffs lost their fran- 
chises by " due course and process of law.? " On the contrary, are 
not these acts, " particular acts of the legislature, which have no 
relation to the community in general, and which are rather senten- 
ces than laws ?" 

By the law of the land, is most clearly intended, the general law; 
a law, which hears before it condemns; which proceeds upon inquiry, 
and renders judgment only after trial. The meaning is, that every 
citizen shall hold his life, liberty, property, and immunities under 
the protection of the general rules which govern society. Every- 
thing Avhich may pass under the form of an enactment, is not there- 
fore to be considered the law of the land. If this were so, acts of 
attainder, bills of pains and penalties, acts of confiscation, acts re- 
versing judgments, and acts directly transferring one man's estate 
to another, legislative judgments, decrees, and forfeitures in all pos- 
sible forms, would be the law of the land. 

Such a strange construction would render constitutional provisions 
of the highest importance completely inoperative and void. It 
would tend directly to establish the union of all powers in the legis- 
lature. There would be no general permanent law for courts to ad- 
minister, or for men to live under. The administration of justice 
would be an empty form, an idle ceremony. Judges would sit to 
execute legislative judgments and decrees; not to declare the law or 
to administer the justice of the country. "Is that the law of the 
land," said JMr. Burke, " upon which, if a man go to Westminster 
Hall, and ask counsel by what title or tenure he holds his privilege 
or estate accordmg to the laiv of ike land, he should be told, that the 
law of the land is not yet known; that no decision or decree has 
been made in his case; that when a decree shall be passed, he will 
then know n-hal ihe law of the land is'( Will this be said to be the 
law of the land, by any lawyer who has a rag of a gown left upon 
his back, or a wig with one tie upon his head.'" 

That the power of electing and appointing the officers of this col- 
lege, is not only a right of the trustees as a corporation, generally, 
and in the aggregate, but thai each individual Iruslee has also his oivn 
individual franchise in such right cf election and appointment, is accord- 
ing to the language of all the authorities. Lord Holt says, " it is 
agreeable to reason and the rules of law, that a franchise should be 
vested in the corporation aggregate, and yet the benefit of it to re- 
dound to the particular members, and to be enjoyed by them in their 
private capacity. Where the privilege of election is used by par- 
ticular persons, it is a particidar right, vested in every particul'ar man.^^'^ 

It is also to be considered, that the president and professors of 
this college have rights to be afiected by these acts. Their interest 

* 1 Black. Com. 44. t ^oke 2 In. 46. t 2 Lord Ray. 952. 



129 

is similar to that o^ fellows in the English colleges; because they 
derive their living, wholly or in part, from the tounder's bounty. 
The president is one of the trustees, or corporators. The profes- 
sors are not necessarily members of the corporation; but they are 
appointed by the trustees, are removable only by them, and have 
fixed salaries payable out of the general funds of the college. — Both 
president and professors havefrcchnhli in their otfices; subject only 
to be removed, by the trustees, as their legal visitors, for good cause. 
All the authorities speak of fellowships in colleges as freeholds, not- 
withstanding the fellows may be liable to be suspended or removed, 
for misbehavior, by their constituted visitors. 

Nothing could have been less expected, in this age, than that 
there should have been an attempt, by acts of the legislature, to 
take away these college livings, the inadequate, but the only support 
of literary men, who have devoted their lives to the instruction of 
youth. The president and professors were appointed by the twelve 
trustees. — They were accountable to nobody else and could be re- 
moved by nobody else. They accepted their otfices on this tenure. 
Yet the legislature has appointed other persons, with power to re- 
move these officers, and to deprive them of their livings; and those 
other persons have exercised that power. No description of private 
property has been regarded as more sacred than college livings. 
They are the estates and freeholds of a most deserving class of 
men; of scholars, who have consented to forego the advantages of 
professional and public employments, and to devote themselves to 
science and literature, and the instruction of youth, in the quiet re- 
treats of academic life. — Whether to dispossess and oust them; to 
deprive them of their office, and to turn them out of their livings; 
to do this not by the power of their legal visitors, or governors, but 
by acts of the legislature; and to do it without forfeiture, and with- 
out lault; whether all this be not in the highest degree an indefen- 
sible and arbitrary proceeding, is a question, of which there would 
seem to be but one side fit for a lawyer or a scholar to espouse. 

Of all the attempts of James U. to overturn the law, and the rights 
of his subjects, none was esteemed more arbitrary or tyrannical, than 
his attack on Mas;dalen Colles;'-, Oxi'ord: And, yet, that attempt was 
nothing but to put out one president and put in another. The presi- 
dent of that college, according to the charter and statutes, is to be 
chosen by the fellows, who are the corporators. There being a va- 
cancy, the king chose to take the appointment out of the hands of 
the fellows, the legal electors of a president, into his own hands. 
He therefore sent down his mandate commundhis: the fellows to ad- 
mit, for president, a person of his nomination; and inasmuch as this 
was directly against the charter and constitution of the college, he 
was pleased to add a non obstante clause of sufliciently comprehensive 
import. The fellows were commanded to admit the person men- 
tioned in the mandate, " anij statute, custom or constitution to the con- 
trary notwithstanding; ivherewith %ve are p'acioxishj pleased to dispense, 
in this behalf^ The fellows refused obedience to this mandate, and 
Dr. Hough, a man of independence and character, was chosen 
president by the fellows, according to the charter and statutes. The 
king then assumed the power, in virtue of his prerogative, to send 
17 



130 

down certain commissmiers to turn him out; which was done accord- 
inoly; and Parker, a creature suited to the times, put in his [)lace. 
And because the president, who was rightfully and legally elected, 
ivould not deliver the keijs, the doors icere broken open. " The nation 
as well as the University," says Bishop Burnet, [Hist, of his own 
times, Vol. 3. p. 119.] "looked on all these proceedings with just 
indignation. It was thought an open piece of robbery and bitrs;lary, 
when men authorised by no legal commission, came and forcibly turned 
men Old of their possession and freehold.'''' Mr. Hume, although a 
man of different temper, and of other sentiments, in some respects, 
than Dr. Burnet, speaks of this arbitrary attempt of prerogative", in 
terms not less decisive. " The president, and all the fellows," says 
he, '■'■except two, who complied, were expelled the college; and Par- 
ker was put in possession of the office. This act of violence of all 
those which were committed during the reign of James, is perhaps 
the most illegal and arbitrary. When the dispensing power was 
the most strenuously insisted on by court lawyers, it had still been 
allowed, that the statutes which regard private property, could not 
legally be infringed by that prerogative. Yet, in this instance, it 
appeared that even these were not now secure from invasion. The 
privileges of a college are attacked; men are illegally dispossessed 
of their property for adhering to their duty, to their oaths, and to 
their religion." 

This measure king James lived to repent, after repentance was 
too late. When the charter of London was restored and other 
measures of violence retracted, to avert the impending revolution, 
the expelled president and fellows of Magdalen College were per 
mitted to resume their rights. It is evident that this was regarded 
as an arbitrary interference with jnirate property. Yet private pro- 
perty was no otherwise attacked, than as a person was appointed to 
administer and enjoy the revenues of a college, in a manner and by 
persons not aidhorised b>j the constitidion of the college. A majority 
of the members of the corporation would not comply with the Iving's 
wishes. A minority would. The object was, therefore, to make 
this minority a majority. To this end the king's commissioners 
were directed to interfere in the case, and they united witlj the two 
complying felloti's, and expelled the rest; and thus effected a change 
in the government of the college. The language in which Mr, 
Hume, and all other writers, speak of this abortive attempt of op- 
pression, shows that colleges were esteemed to be, as they truly are 
private corporations, and the property and privileges Avhich belong 
to them, pr'ivcde property and private privileges. Court lawyers 
were found to justify the king in dispensing with the laws; that is, 
in assuming and exercising a legislative authority. But no lawyer, 
not even a court lawyer, in the reign of king James the second, as 
far as appears, was found to say that even by this high authority, he 
could infringe the franchises of the fellows of a college and take away 
their livinss. Mr. Hume gives the reason; it is that such franchises 
were regarded, in a most emphatic sense, as private property.* 

If it could be made to appear, that the trustees and the president 
and professors held their offices and franchises during the pleasure 

* Vide a full account of this rase in state trials, 4 Eiln. 4 Vol. page 262. 



131 

of tho legislature, and that the property holden belonged to the 
state, then indeed the legislature have done no more than they had 
a right to do. But this is not so. The charter is a charter of privi- 
leges and immuniiies ; and these are holden by the trustees expressly 
against the state forever. 

' It is admitted, that the state, by its courts of law, can enforce the 
will of the donor, and compel a faithful execution of the trust. The 
plaintiffs claim no exemption from legal responsibility. They hold 
themselves at all times answerable to the law of the land, for their 
conduct in the trust committed to them. They ask only to hold the 
property of which they are owners, and the franchises, which belong 
to them, until they shall be found by due course and process of law, 
to have forfeited them. 

It can make no ditference, whether the legislature exercise the 
power it has assumed, by removing the trustees and the president 
and professors, directly and by name, or by appointing others to 
expel them. The principle is the same, and in point of fact, the 
result has been the same. If the entire franchise cannot be taken 
away, neither can it be essentially impaired. If the trustees are 
legal owners of the property, they are sole owners. If they are 
visitors, they are sole visitors' No one will be found to say, that if 
the legislature may do what it has done, it may not do anything 
and everything, which it may choose to do, relative to the property 
of the corporation, and the privileges of its members and officers. 

If the view which has been taken of this question be at all cor- 
rect, this was an eleemosynary corporation; a private charity. The 
property was private property. The trustees were visitors, and 
their right to hold the charter, administer the funds, and visit and 
govern the college was a franchise and privilege^ solemnly granted 
to them. The use being public, in no way diminishes their legal 
estate in the property, or their title to the franchise. There is no 
principle, nor any case, which declares that a gift to such a corpo- 
ration, is a gift to the public. The acts in question violate property. 
They take away privileges, immunities, and franchises; They deny 
to the trustees the protection of the law; and they are retrospective 
in their operation. In all which respects they are against the con- 
stitution of New Hampshire. 

The plaintiffs contend, in the second place, that the acts in ques- 
tion are repugnant to the 10th section of the 1st article of the con- 
stitution of the United States. The material words of that section 
are; " no state shall pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or 
law impairing the ol)ligation of contracts." 

The ol))ect of these most important provisions in the national 
constitution has often been discussed, both here and elsewhere. It 
is exhibited with great clearness and force by one of the distin- 
guished persons who framed that instrument. " Bills of attainder, 
ex post J'ucio laws, and laws impairing the obligatif»n of contracts, 
are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to 
every principle of sound legislation. The two former, are expressly 
prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the state consti- 
tutions, and all of thern are prohibited by the spirit and scope of 



132 

these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, 
nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers, ought 
not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention 
added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and 
private rights; and I am much deceived, if they have not, in so do- 
ing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments, as the undoubt- 
ed interests of their constituents. The sober people of America, 
are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public 
councils. They have seen with regret, and with indignation, that 
sudden changes, and legislative interferences in cases affecting per- 
sonal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential 
speculators; and snares to the more industrious and less informed 
part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative 
interference is but the link of a long chain of repetitions; every 
subsequent interference being naturally produced by the etfects of 
the preceding."* 

It has already been decided in this court, that a. i^rant is a contract, 
within the meaning of this provision; and that a grant by a state, is 
also a contract, as much as the grant of an individual. In Fletcher 
vs. Peck| this court says, " a contract is a compact between two or 
more parties, and is either executory or executed. An executory 
contract is one in which a party binds himself to do, or not to do, a 
particular thing; such was the law under which the conveyance was 
made by the government. A contract executed is one in which the 
object of contract is performed; and this, says Blackstone diflers in 
nothing from a grant. The contract between Georgia and the pur- 
chasers was executed by the grant. A contract executed, as well 
as one which is executory, contains obligations binding on the par- 
ties. A grant, in its own nature, amounts to an extinguishment of 
the right of the grantor, and implies a contract not to reassert that 
right. If under a fair construction of the constitution, grants are 
comprehended under the term contracts, is a grant from the state 
excluded from the operation of the provision.-' Is the clause to be 
considered as- inhibiting the state from impairing the obligation of 
contracts between two individuals, but as excluding from that inhibi- 
tion contracts made with itself.'' The words themselves contain no 
such distinction. They are general, and are applicable to contracts 
of every description. If contracts made with the .state are to be 
exempted Irom their operation, the exception must arise from the 
character of the contracting party, not from the words which are 
cm])loyed. Whatever respect might have been felt for the state 
sovereignties, it is not to be disguised, that the framers of the consti- 
tution viewed, with some apprehension, the violent acts which might 
grow out of the feelings of the moment; and that the people of the 
United States in adopting that instrument, have manifested a deter- 
mination to shield themselves, and their property, from the efiects of 
those sudden and strong pas.sions to which men are exposed. The re- 
strictions on the legislative power of the states, are obviously founded 
in this sentiujent; and the constitution of the United States contains 
what may be deemed a bill of rights, for the people of each state " 
* 44tli No. of the Fed. by Mr. Madison. f 6 Crancl) 87 



133 

It has also been decided, that a grant by a state before the revolu- 
tion, is as much to be protected as a grant since.* But the case of 
Terrett vs. Taylor, before cited, is of all others most pertinent t6 
the present argument. Indeed the judgment of the court in that 
case seems to leave little to be argued or decided in this. " A pri- 
vate corpoiTition," say the court, " created by the legislature, may 
lose its franchises by a misuser or a nonuser of them; and they may 
be resumed by the government under a judicial judgment upon a qiio 
warranto to ascertain and enforce the forfeiture. This is the com- 
mon law of the land, and is a tacit condition annexed to the cre- 
ation of every such corporation. Upon a change of government, 
too, it may be admitted that such exclusive privileges attached to a 
private corporation as are inconsistent with the new government, 
may be abolished. In respect, also, to public corporations which 
exist only fx)r public purposes, such as counties, towns, cities, &.c. 
the legislature may, under proper limitations, have a right to change, 
modify, enlarge or restrain them, securing, however, the property 
for the uses of those for whom and at whose expense it was origin- 
ally purchased. But that the legislature can repeal statutes creat- 
ing private corporations, or confirming to them property already ac- 
quired under the faith of previous laws, and by such repeal can vest 
the property of such corporations exclusively in the state, or dispose 
of the same to such purposes as they please, without the consent 
or default of the corporators, we are not prepared to admit; and we 
think ourselves standing upon the principles of natural justice, upon 
the fundamental laws of every free government, upon the spirit and 
letter of the constitution of the United States, and upon the de- 
cisions of most respectable judicial tribunals, in resisting such a 
doctrine." 

This court, then, does not admit the doctrine, that a legislature 
can repeal statutes creating private corporations. If it cannot re- 
peal them altogether, of course it cannot repeal any part of them, 
or impair them, or essentially alter them without the consent of 
the corporators. If, therefore, it has been shown that this college 
is to be regarded as a private charity, this case is embraced within 
the very terms of that decision. A grant of coporate powers and 
privileges is as much a contract as a grant of land. What proves all 
charters of this sort to be contracts, is, that they must be accepted 
to give them force and effect. If they are not accepted they are 
void. And in the case of an existing corporation, if a new charter 
is given it, it may even accept part and reject the rest. In Rex vs. 
vice chancellor of Cambridge,"]' lord Mansfield says, " there is a 
vast deal of difference between a new charter granted to a new cor- 
por?.tion (who must take it as it is given;) and a new charter given 
to a corporation already in being, and acting either under a former 
charter, or under prescriptive usage. The latter, a corporation 
already existing, are not obliged to accept the new charter in toto, 
and to receive either all or none of it: they may act partly under it, 
and partly under their old charter or prescription. The validity of 
these new charters must turn upon the acceptance of them." In 
the same case Mr. Justice Wilmot says, " It is the concurrenee and 

* New Jersey vs. Wilson. 7 Cranch 164. f 3 Buit. 1656. 

M 



134 

acceptance of the university that gives the/orce,to the charter of the 
crown." In the King vs. Passmore,* lord Kenyon observes: " some 
things are clear; when a corporation exists capable of discharging 
its functions, the crown cannot obtrude another charter upon them; 
they may either accept or reject it."! 

In all cases relative to charters, the acceptance of them is uniform- 
ly alleged in the pleadings. This shows the general understandhig 
of the law, that they are grants, or contracts; and that parties are 
necessary to give them force and validity. In King vs. Dr. Askew,J 
it is said; " The crown cannot oblige a man to be a coporator, with- 
out his consent: he shall not be subject to the inconveniences of it, 
without acceptins; it and assentiiig to it." These terms, " acceptance^^ 
and " assent,''^ are the very language of contract. In Ellis vs. Mar- 
shall§ it was expressly adjudged that the naming of the defendant 
among others, in an act of incorporation, did not of itself make him 
a corporator; and that his assent was necessary to that end. The 
court speak of the act of incorporation as a grant, and observe; 
" that a man may refuse a grant, whether from the government or 
an individual, seems to be a principle too clear, to require the sup- 
port of authorities." But Justice Buller, in King vs. Passmore, 
furnishes, if possible, a still more direct and explicit authority. 
Speaking of a corporation for government, he says: " I do not know 
how to reason on this point better than in the manner urged by one 
of the relator's counsel; who considered the grant of incorporation 
to be a compact between the crown and a certain number of the 
subjects, the latter of whom undertake, in consideration of the 
privileges which are bestowed, to exert themselves lor tue good 
government of the place." This language applies, with peculiar 
propriety and force to the case before the court. It was in conse- 
quence of the " privileges bestowed," that Dr. Wheclock and his 
associates undertook to exert themselves for the instruction and 
education of youth in this college; and it was on the same consid- 
eration that the founder endowed it with his property. 

And because charters of incorporation are of the nature of con- 
tracts, they cannot be altered or varied but by consent of the origi- 
nal parties. If a charter be granted by the king, it may be altered 
by a new charter granted by the king, and accepted by the corpora- 
tors. But if the tirst charter be granted by parliament, the consent 
of parliament must be obtained to any alteration. In King vs. Mil- 
ler, |1 lord Kenyon says; "Where a corporation takes its rise from 
the king's charter, the king by granting, and the corporation by ac- 
cepting another charter, may alter it, because it is done with tiie 
consent of all the parties who are competent to consent to the 
alteration. "TT 

There are, in this case, all the essential constituent parts of a 
contract. There is something to be contracted about, there are 
parties, and there are plain terms in which the agreement of the 
parties, on the subject of the contract, is expressed. There are 
mutual considerations and inducements. The charter recites, that 
the founder, on his part, has agreed to establisli his seminary, in 

* 3 Term Rep. 240. f Vide also 1 Kyd on Cor. 65. ^4 Burr, 2200. § 2 Mass. Rep. 269. 
II 6 Term Rep. 277. IT Vide also 2 Brown, Cli. Rep. 662. Ex parte, Bolton school. 



135 

New Hampshire, and to enlarge it, beyond its original design, among 
other things, for the benefit of that province: and thereupon a char- 
ter is given to him, and his associates designated by himself, prom- 
ising and assuring to them under the plighted faith of the state, the 
right of governing the college, and administering its concerns in the 
manner provided in the charter. There is a complete and perfect 
grant to them of all the power of superintendence, visitation, and 
government. Is not this a contract? If lands or money had been 
granted to him and his associates, for the same purposes, such grant 
could not be rescinded. And is there any difference in legal con- 
templation, between a grant of corporate franchises, and a grant of 
tangible property ? No such difference is recognised in any decided 
case,- nor does it exist in the common apprehension of mankind. 

It is therefore contended, that this case falls within the true meaning 
of this provision of the constitution, as expounded in the decisions 
of this court; that the charter of 1769, is a contract, a stipulation or 
agreement; mutual in its considerations, express and formal in its 
terms, and of a most binding and solemn nature. That the acts in 
question impair this contract, has already been sufficiently shown. 
They repeal and abrogate its most essential parts. 

A single observation may not be improper on the opinion of the 
court of New Hampshire, which has been published. The learned 
judges, who delivered that opinion, have viewed this question in a 
very different light, from that in which the plaintiffs have endeavour- 
ed to exhibit it. After some general remarks, they assume that this 
college is a public corporation; and on this basis their judgment 
rests. Whether all colleges are not regarded as private, and elee- 
mosynary corporations, by all law writers, and all judicial decisions; 
whether this college was not founded by Dr. Wheelock; whether the 
charter was not granted at his request, the better to execute a trust, 
which he had already created; whether he and his associates did not 
become visitors, by the charter; and whether Dartmouth College 
be not, therefore, in the strictest sense, a private charity, are ques- 
tions which the learned judges do not appear to have discussed. 

It is admitted in that opinion, that if it be a private corporation, 
its rights stand on the same ground as those of an individual. The 
great question, therefore, to be decided, is, to which class of corpo- 
rations do colleges thus founded belong? And the plaintiffs have 
endeavoured to satisfy the court, that according to the well settled 
principles, and uniform decisions of law, they are private eleemosy- 
nary corporations. 

Much has heretofore been said on the necessity of admitting such 
a power in the legislature as has been assumed in this case. Many 
cases of possible evil have been imagined, which might otherwise be 
without remedy. Abuses, it is contended, might arise in the man- 
agement of such institutions, which the ordinary courts of law would 
be unable to correct. But this is only another instance of that 
habit of supposing extreme cases, and then of reasoning from them, 
which is the constant refuge of those who are obliged to defend a 
cause, which, upon its merits, is indefensible. It would be suffi- 
cient to say, in answer, that it is not pretended, that there was here 
any such case of necessity. But a still more satisfactory answer, is, 



136 

that the apprehension of danger is groundless, and therefore the 
whole argument fails. Experience has not taught us that there is 
danger of great evils or of great inconvenience from this source. 
Hitherto, neither in our own country nor elsewhere, have such 
cases of necessity occurred. The judicial establishments of the 
state are presumed to be competent to prevent abuses and violations 
of trust, in cases of this kind, as well as in all others. If they be 
not, they are imperfect, and their amendment would be a most proper 
subject for legislative wisdom. Under the government and protec- 
tion of the general laws of the land, these institutions have always 
been found safe, as well as useful. They go on, with the progress 
of society, accommodating themselves easily, without sudden change 
or violence, to the alterations which take place in its condition; and 
in the knowledge, the habits, and pursuits of men. The English 
colleges were founded in Catholic ages. Their rehgion was reformed 
with the general reformation of the nation; and they are suited per- 
fectly well to the purpose of educating the protestant youth of mod- 
ern times. Dartmouth college was established under a charter 
granted by the provincial government; but a better constitution for 
a college, or one more adapted to the condition of things under 
the present government, in all material respects, could not now be 
framed. Nothing in it was found to need alteration at the revolution. 
The wise men of that day saw in it one of the best hopes of future 
times, and commended it, as it was, with parental care, to the pro- 
tection and guardianship of the government of the state. A charter 
of more liberal sentiments, of wiser provisions, drawn with more 
care, or in a better spirit, could not be expected at any time or from 
any source. The college needed no change in its organization or 
government. That which it did need was the kindness, the patron- 
age, the bounty of the legislature; not a mock elevation to the char- 
acter of a university, without the solid benefit of a shilling's donation 
to sustain the character; not the swelling and empty authority 
of establishing instihitcs and other colleges. This unsubstantial 
pageantry would seem to have been in derision of the scanty en- 
dowment and limited means of an unobtrusive but useful and grow- 
ing seminary. Least of all was there a necessity, or pretence of 
necessity, to infringe its legal rights, violate its franchises and privi- 
leges, and pour upon it these overwhelming streams of litigation. 

But this argument from iiecessiUj, would equally apply in all other 
cases. — If it be well founded, it would prove, that whenever any in- 
convenience or evil should be experienced from the restrictions im- 
posed on the legislature by the constitution, these restrictions ought 
to be disregarded. It is enough to say, that the people have thought 
otherwise. — They have, most wisely, chosen to take the risk, of oc- 
casional inconvenience from the want of power, in order that there 
might be a settled limit to its exercise, and a permanent security 
against its abuse. They have imposed prohibitions and restraints; 
and they have not rendered these altogether vain and nugatory by 
conferring the power of dispensation. If inconvenience should arise, 
which the legislature cannot remedy under the power conferred upon 
it, it is not answerable for such inconvenience. That which it can- 
not do, within the limits prescribed to it, it cannot do at all. No 



137 ' ' 

legislature in this country is able, and may the time never come 
when it shall be able, to apply to itself the memorable expression of 
a Roman pontiff; " Licet hoc de jure non possumus, volumus tamen 

DE PLENITUDINE POTESTATIS." 

The case before the court is not of ordinary importance, nor of 
every day occurrence. It affects not this college only, but every 
college, and all the literary institutions of the country. They have 
flourished, hitherto, and have become in a high degree respectable 
and useful to the community. They have all a common principle of 
existence, the inviolability of their charters. It will be a danger- 
ous, a most dangerous experiment, to hold these institutions subject 
to the rise and fall of popular parties, and the fluctuations of politi- 
cal opinions. If the franchise may be at any time taken away, or 
impaired, the property also may be taken away, or its use perverted. 
Benefactors will have no certainty of effecting the object of their 
bounty; and learned men will be deterred from devoting themselves 
to the service of such institutions, from the precarious title of their 
offices. Colleges and halls will be deserted by all better spirits, and 
become a theatre for the contention of politics. Party and faction 
will be cherished in the places consecrated to piety and learning. 
These consequences are neither remote nor possible only. They 
are certain and immediate. 

When the court in North Carolina declared the law of the state, 
which repealed a grant to its university, unconstitutional and void, 
the legislature had the candor and the wisdom to repeal the law. 
This example, so honorable to the state which exhibited it, is most 
fit to be followed on this occasion. And there is good reason to 
hope, that a state, which has hitherto been so much distinguished 
for temperate councils, cautious legislation, and regard to law, will 
not fail to adopt a course, which will accord with her highest and 
best interest, and in no small degree elevate her reputation. 

It was for many and obvious reasons most anxiously desired, that 
the question of the power of the legislature over this charter should 
have been finally decided in the state court. An earnest hope was 
entertained that the judges of that court might have viewed the case 
in the light favorable to the rights of the trustees. That hope has 
failed. It is here, that those rights are now to be maintained, or 
they are prostrated forever. Omnia alia perfugia honornm, siihsidia, 
consilia, auxilia, jura cecideriint. Quern enim alitim appelleml quern 
obh'slerl queni imploreml JYvti hoc loco, nisi apud vos, nisi pei' vos, 
judices, salulem nostram, quae spe exigua extremaque pendet, tenuerimus; 
nihil est prceterea quo confugere possimus. 



18 u* 



ARGUMENT 



IN THE IMPEACHMENT OF JAMES PRESCOTT, BEFORE THE SENATE 

OF MASSACHUSETTS.— 1821. 

A Petition having been presented to the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth 
of Massachusetts, praying an incjiiiry into the official conduct of James Prescott, Esquire, 
Juiige of Probate of Wills, &c. for the Coiuity of Middlesex, and charging iiim with miscon- 
duct and maladministration in office ; and having been referred to a committee, wiio re- 
ported a statement of facts, togedier with resolutions, setting forth that the said Prescott 
ought to be impeached therefor, at the bar of the Senate of the Commonwealth — on the 
2d day of February, 1821, an order was passed accordingly, and the Senate demanded to 
take measures for his impeachment and appearance to answer thereto. A committee waa 
thereupon appointed to prepare and report articles of impeachment. And John Glen King, 
Levi Lincoln, William Baylies, Warren Dutton, Samuel P. P. Fay, Lemuel Shaw and 
Sherman Leland, Esquires, were appointed Managers. Fifteen Articles of Impeaclunent 
were exhibited and read. 

The Articles substantially charged him with holding Probate Courts for transacting busi- 
ness at other times than those authorised by law, demanding and taking illegal fees, and 
acting as counsel and receivhig fees as such in cases pending, in his own Court, before him, 
as Judge. 

After receiving the Respondent's answer to the Articles of Impeachment, and hearing 
the evidence in support of and against the same; Messrs. Leland, Shaw and Dutton argued 
the case in behalf of the Man;igers. Rlr. Hoar tlien opened the argument, on the part of 
the Respondent, Mr. Blake followed, and was succeeded by Mr. Webster, who spoke as 
follows: — 

Mr. President, — I agree with the Hon. Managers, m the impor- 
tance which tliey have attributed to this proceeding. They have, I 
think, not at all overrated that importance, nor ascribed to the occa- 
sion, a solemnity which does not belong to it. Perhaps, however, I 
differ from them, in regard to the causes which give interest and im- 
portance to this trial, and to the parties likely to be most lastingly 
and deeply aiTected by its progress and result. The Respondent has 
as deep a stake, no doubt, in this trial, as he can well have in anything 
which does not affect life. Regard for reputation, love of honorable 
character, affection for those who must suffer with him, if he suffers, 
and who will feel your sentence of conviction, if you should pro- 
nounce one, fall on their own heads, as it falls on his, cannot but 
excite, in his breast, an anxiety, which nothing could well increase, 
and nothing but a consciousness of upright intention could enable 
him to endure. Yet, sir, a few years will carry him far beyond the 
reach of the consequences of this trial. Those same years will 
bear away, also, in their rapid flight, those who prosecute and those 



139 

who judge him. But the community remains. The CommonweaUh, 
we trust, will be perpetual. She is yet in her youth, as a tree and 
independent State, and, by analogy to the life of individuals, may be 
said to be in that period of her existence, when principles of action 
are adopted, and character is formed. The Hon. Respondent will 
not be the principal sufferer, if he should here fall a victim to charges 
of undefined and undefinable offences, to loose notions of constitu- 
tional law, or novel rules of evidence. By the necessary retribution 
of things, the evil of such a course would fall most heavily on the 
State which should pursue it, by shaking its character for justice, 
and impairing its principles of constitutional liberty. — This, sir, is 
the first interesting and important impeachment which has arisen 
under the constitution of the Commonwealth.— The decision now to 
be made cannot but affect subsequent cases. Governments neces- 
sarily are more or less regardful of precedents, on interesting public 
trials, and as, on the present occasion, all who act any part here 
have naturally considered what has been done, and what rules and 
principles have governed, in similar cases, in other communities, so 
those who shall come after us will look back to this trial. And I 
most devoutly hope they may be able to regard it, as a safe and use- 
ful example, fit to instruct and guide them in their own duty; an ex- 
ample full of wisdom, and of moderation; an example of cautious 
and temperate justice; an example of law and principle successfully 
opposed to temporary excitement; an example, indicating in all those 
who bear a leading part in the proceedings, a spirit, fitted for a ju- 
dicial trial, and proper for men who act with an enlightened and 
firm regard to the permanent interests of public constitutional lib- 
erty. To preserve the Respondent in the office which he fills, may 
be an object of little interest to the public; and to deprive him of 
that office may be of as little. But on what principles, he is either 
to be preserved or deprived, is an inquiry, in the highest degree im- 
portant, and in which the public has a deep and lasting interest. 

The provision, which the constitutions of this and other states 
have made for trying impeachments before the Senate, is obviously 
adopted from an analogy to the English constitution. It was per- 
ceived, however, and could hardly fail to be perceived, that the re- 
semblance was not strong, between the tribunals, clothed with the 
power of trying impeachments, in this country, and the English 
House of Lords. This last is not only a branch of the legislature, 
but a standing judicature. It has jurisdiction to revise the judg- 
ments of all other courts. It is accustomed to the daily exercise of 
judicial power, and has acquired the habit and character which such 
exercise confers. There is a presumption, therefore, that it will try 
impeachments, as it tries other causes, and that the common rules 
of evidence, and the forms of proceedings, so essential to the rights 
of the accused, which prevail in other cases, will prevail also in 
cases of impeachment. In the construction of our American govern- 
ments, it is obvious, that although the power of judging on impeach- 
ments could probably be nowhere so well deposited, as with the 
senate, yet it could not but be foreseen, that this high act of judica- 
ture was to be trusted to the hands of those who did not ordinarily 
perform judicial functions; but who occasionally only, and on such 



140 

occasions, moreover, as were generally likely to be attended with 
some excitement, took upon themselves the duty of judges. It 
must, nevertheless, be confessed, that few evils have been, as yet, 
found to result from this arrangement. In all the states, in the ag- 
greo-ate, although there have been several impeachments, there have 
been fewer convictions, and fewer still, in which there is just reason 
to suppose injustice has taken place. From the experience of the 
past, I trust we form favorable anticipations of the future, and that 
the judgment which this court shall now pronounce, and the rules 
and principles which shall guide that judgment, will be such as shall 
secure to the community a rigorous and unrelenting censorship over 
maladministration in office, and to individuals entire protection 
against prejudice, excitement, and injustice. 

The Respondent is impeached for various instances of alleged mis- 
conduct, in his oflice, as Judge of Probate, for the county of Mid- 
dlesex. In order that we may understand the duties which he is 
charged with violating, it is necessary to inquire into the origin and 
nature of these duties, and to examine the legal history of the Com- 
monwealth, in regard to the officers, who from time to time have 
executed and performed these duties. It is now two centuries since 
our ancestors established a colony here. They brought with them, 
of course, the general notions with regard to property, the admin- 
istration of justice, and the peculiar powers and duties of different 
tribunals, which they had formed in the country which they left; and 
these notions, and general ideas, they adopted in practice, with such 
modifications as circumstances rendered necessary. In England, 
they had been accustomed to see the jurisdiction over wills and ad- 
ministrations exercised in the spiritual courts, by the bishops or their 
ordinaries. Here, there were no such courts. Still it was a neces- 
sary jurisdiction, to be exercised by some tribunal, and in the early 
history of the colony, it was exercised by the same magistrates, or 
some of them, on whom the other portions of judicial power were 
conferred. Wills were proved, and administrations granted, by the 
county magistrates, essentially in the same manner as in England 
by the bishops, or their delegates. It seems that any two magis- 
trates, with the clerk of the county court, might prove a will, and 
cause it to be recorded in the county court; and might grant admin- 
istrations, in like manner. (Ancient Charters, 204.) 

At length, by the act of 1685, {An. Ch. 205) it was expressly de- 
clared, that the county court, in cases of probate of wills, and the 
granting of administrations, should have the same power and au- 
thoiity as the ordinary in England. 

By the provincial charter of 1692, all power and jurisdiction, in 
the probate of wills and granting administration, was conferred on 
the governor and council. The governor then became supreme or- 
dinary, and by the provision of the statutes they were to exercise 
the same power and authority as were exercised by the ordinary in 
England. 

At this time, no statute had regulated fees in the probate office; 
and yet it is not probable that business was done there, at that time, 
without fees, any more than at later periods. We must look there- 
fore for some other authority, than a statute permission, for the 



141 

establishment and regulation of fees, in this office. And as the 
governor and council possessed the general power of the courts in 
England, it is material to inquire into the authority and practice of 
those courts in this particular. There can be no doubt, that in the 
English courts, fees, in cases of probate and administration, were, 
from early times, in most cases regulated by custom, and the author- 
ity and direction of the courts themselves, without statute provisions. 
A table of fees, established in 1597, in the time of archbishop Whit- 
gift, may be seen in Bitrn''s Ecclesiastical Laiu, vol. 2. p. 266. 

This table sets forth a long Ust of charges and fees of office ac- 
cruing in the administration of estates, such as for " administra- 
tion," which probably means decreeing administration, "commis- 
sion," which is the letter of administration, " interlocutory decree," 
"examination of account," "respite of inventory," "caveat," 
" citation," " quietus," Stc. &c. &.c. At this time there was ho 
statute which established the fees of office, in cases of administra- 
tion, except one single provision in the St. 21, Hen. YIII, cap. 5, 
which enacted, that for granting administration on goods under forty 
pounds, the judge should receive no more than two shillings and 
sixpence. It appears from the preamble of that statute, that no pre- 
vious law was existing, on the subject, and the grievance recited, 
is, that the bishops and their ordinaries demanded and received 
greater fees, for the probation of testaments, and other things there- 
unto belonging, than had been aforetime usual and accustomed. 
The preamble recites also, that an act of Henry Y. had ordained, 
that no ordinary should take, for the probation of testaments, or 
other things to the same belonging, any more than was accustomed 
and used in the time of king Edward the third, which act did 
endure but to the next parliament, by reason that the said ordinaries did 
then promise to reform and amend their exactions : but inasmuch as the 
evil was still continued and aggravated, the act proceeded to limit 
and fix fees of office, for the probate of wills, and for other services 
respecting testate estates, and contains the single provision above 
mentioned, and no more, respecting administrations on intestate 
estates. 

It is entirely clear and certain, that the fees of bishops and their 
ordinaries did not originate in the grant or provision of any act of 
parliament. Such acts were passed only to restrain and limit the 
amount, and to prevent exaction and extortion. The right to demand 
and receive fees rested on the general principle of a right to com- 
pensation for services rendered; and in the absence of statute limit- 
ations, the amount was ascertained by the practice and usage of the 
courts, being reasonable and proper. Hence it happened, in Eng- 
land, that different fees were paid, and probably still are, in the dif- 
ferent dioceses, according to the usage of diflerent courts, and the 
time when their tables of fees were respectively established. " In 
the several dioceses there are tables of fees, different, as it seemeth, 
in the several charges, in proportion to the difference of times w here- 
in they have been established." (2. Burn, 269.) This is precisely 
what has happened, and what, whether allowed to prove it or not, 
every member of this court knows, now actually exists, in relation 
to the different counties of this Commonwealth. 



142 

It is most material to the Respondent's case to understand clearly, 
on what ground it is, that, as Judge of Prohate, he had a right to 
receive fees for services performed in his oHice. There is a diHbr- 
ence of opinion, in matter of law, in this respect, between the Man- 
agers and ourselves, wide enough, in my judgment, to extend over 
the whole case. If the House "of Representatives be right, in the 
legal doctrine which their Managers have advanced here, I agree at 
once the case is against the Respondent, unless, indeed, an indul- 
gence may be allowed to his inhrmity, in not understanding the law, 
as it is now asserted. I will proceed to state the question, now at 
issue between the Managers and us, as clearly as I may be able. 
The Managers contend that all fees of office, in such ofhces as the 
Respondent's, arise only from the express g-yant of the legislature; 
and that none can be claimed, where such grant is not shown. We, 
on the other hand, humbly submit, that the right, in such othces, to 
receive fees, is the general right to receive reasonable compensation 
for services rendered, and labor performed; and is no otherwise af- 
fected by statute, than as the amount of fees, is, or may be, limUed 
by statute. 

It is certain, that judges of probate, in this state, are required 
to perform many acts, (such, for instance, as granting guardianship 
to persons n-on compotes mentis) for which no fees are specifically 
estal)lished by the statute. One of the learned Managers has ex- 
pressly advanced the proposition, that for such services the judge is 
entitled to receive no fees whatever. He contends, that tlie law 
presumes him to be adequately paid, on a sort of average, for all ser- 
vices by him performed, by tlie fees specially provided for some. On 
the contrary, we, very humbly, insist, that in all such cases the judge 
has a right to receive a just and reasonable tee of office for the ser- 
vice pertbrmed; the amount to be settled, on proper principles, and, 
as well as in any way, by analogy to similar services, for which the 
amount of fees'is fixed by statute. The statute, for example, es- 
tablishes the fees for a grant of guardianship over minors. It estab- 
lishes none, for guardianship over persons non compotes me7ifis. The 
precise difterence between the learned Managers and us, is, that they 
contend, that, in the last case, the judge is entitled to receive no fee 
at all; while we think, that he has a right to receive, in such case, 
a reasonable fee; and that what is resonable may fairly be deterniin- 
ed by reference to what the law allows him in the case of guardian- 
ship over minors. 

I rejoice, sir, in behalf of my client, that we have here a plain, in- 
telligible question of law, to be discussed and decided. This is a 
question, in which neither prerogative nor discretion has aught to do. 
It is not to be decided, by reasons of state, or those political consid- 
erations, which we have heard so often, but so indefinitely, and, in 
my judgment, so alarmingly, referred to, and relied on, in the open- 
ing speeches of more than one of the learned Managers. It may 
possibly happen, sir, to the learned Managers, to share the fortunes 
of the gods in Ilomer's battles. While they keep themselves in the 
bijii) atmosphere of prerogative, and political discretion, and assail 
the R(>spondent from tlie clouds, the advantage, in the controversy, 
may remain entirely with them. When they descend, however, to 



143 

an equal field of mortal combat, and consent to contend with mortal 
weapons — cominus ease — it is probable they may sometimes get, as 
well as give, a wound. On the present question, we meet the learn- 
ed Managers on equal terms, and fair ground, and we are willing 
that our client's fate should abide the result. The Managers have 
advanced a plain and intelligible proposition, as being the law of the 
land. If they make it out, they show a good case against the Re- 
spondent; if they fail so to do, then their case, so far as it rests on 
this proposition, fails also. Let, then, the proposition be examined. 

The proposition is, as before stated, that for services, which the 
law requires judges of probate to perform, but for which there is no 
particular fee established or provided by statute, they can receive 
no fee whatever. 

In the first place, let it be remarked, that, of the various duties 
and services, required of judges of probate, some grow out of the 
very nature of their oftice, and are incidental to it, or arise by com- 
mon law; others were imposed by statutes passed before the estab- 
lishment of any fee bill whatever, and others, again, by statutes 
passed since. The statute, commonly called the fee bill, was passed 
for the regulation of fees in other courts, and other offices, as well 
as of the judges and registers of probate. It imposes no duty what- 
ever on any officer. It treats only of existing duties, and of those 
no farther than to hmit fees. It declares, that, " The fees of the 
several persons hereafter mentioned, for the services respedivelij an- 
nexed fo their iiames, shall be as follows," &c. The statute then 
proceeds to enumerate, among other things, certain services of the 
judges of probate; but it is acknowledged that it does not enumerate 
or set forth all the services, which the law calls on him to perform. 

In our opinion, sir, this is simply a reslraining statute. It fixes 
the amount of fees, in the cases mentioned, leaving everything else 
as it stood before. I have already stated, that, in England, fees, in 
the ecclesiastical courts, for probate of wills, and granting adminis- 
trations, were of earlier date than any statute respecting them, and 
their amount ascertained, by usage, and the authority of the courts 
themselves. " The rule is," says Dr. Burn, " the known and es- 
tablished custom of every place, being reasonable." (4. Burn's 
Eccles. Law, 261.) 

And if the reasonableness of the fee be disputed, it may be tried 
by jury, whether the fee be reasonable. (1. SalkeUl, 333.) If this 
be so, then clearly there exists a right to some fee, independent of a 
particular statute; for if there be no right to any fee at all, why refer 
to a jury to decide ichat fee would be reasonable.'' But the law is 
still more express on this point. — " Fees are certain perquisites al- 
lowed to officers in the administration of justice, as a recompense for 
their labor and trouble; ascertained, either by acts of parliament, or 
by ancient tisage, which gives them an equal sanction with an act of 
parliament." All such fees as have been allowed by courts of jus- 
tice to their officers, as a recompense for their labor and attendance, 
are established fees; and the parties c«/ij;o/ be deprired of them with- 
out an act of parliament." (^Coke, Lit. 368. Prec. Chan. 551 
Jacobus Law Diet. — " Fees.") 



144 

I may add, that fees are recoverable, in an action of assumpsit, as 
for work and labor performed. The doctrine contended for on the 
other side is contradicted, in so many words, by a well settled rule; 
viz. that if an office be erected for the public good, though no fee is 
annexed to it, it is a good office; and the party, for the labor and 
pains which he takes in executing it, may maintain a quanhim meruit, 
if not as a fee yet as a compensation, for his trouble. {Moore, 808. 
Jac. " Fees." (A. E.) Hard. 355. Salk. 333.) 

The universal practice, sir, has corresponded with these rules of 
law. Almost every officer in the Commonwealth, whose compensa- 
tion consists in fees of office, renders services not enumerated in the 
fee bill, and is paid for those services; and this, through no indul- 
gence, or abuse, but with great propriety and justice. Allow me to 
mention one instance, which may be taken as a sample for many. 
Some thousands of dollars are paid, every year, to the clerks of the 
several Courts of Common Pleas, in this State, for certified copies of 
papers and records remaining in their offices. The fee bill neither 
authorises the taking of any such fee, nor limits its amount, nor 
mentions it, in any way. There are other instances, equally clear 
and strong, and they show us that all the courts of justice, and all 
the officers concerned in its administration, have understood the law, 
as the Respondent has understood it; and that the notion of the 
learned Managers derives as little support from practice, as it does 
from reason or authority. The learned Managers have produced 
no one opinion of any writer, no decision of any court, and, as I 
think, no shadow of reason, to sustain themselves in the extraordi- 
nary ground which they have taken; ground, I admit, essential to be 
maintained by them, but which the Respondent could devoutly wish 
they had taken somewhat more of pains to examine and explore be- 
fore, on the strength of it, they had brought him to this bar. I sub- 
mit it, sir, to the judgment of this court, and to the judgment of 
every judge and every lawyer in the land, whether the law be not, 
that officers, paid by fees, have a right to such fees, for services ren- 
dered, on the general principle of compensation for work and labor 
performed; the amount to be ascertained by the statute, in cases in 
which the statute has made a regulation; and, in other cases, by anal- 
ogy to the services, which are especially provided for, and by a con- 
sideration of what is just and reasonable in the case. With all my 
respect, sir, for the learned Managers, it would be mere afiectation, 
if I were to express myself with any dithdence on this part of the 
case, or should leave the topic with the avowal of any other feeling 
than surprise, that a judge of the land should be impeached and pros- 
ecuted upon the ibundation of such opinions as have in this particu- 
lar been advanced. 

Before I proceed further, sir, I wish to take notice of a point, 
perhaps not entirely essential to the case. The Respondent, in his 
answer, has stated, that the jurisdiction of judges of probate con- 
sists of two parts, commonly called the amicable or voluntary and 
the contentious jurisdiction. One of the learned Managers has 
said, that this distinction can by no means be allowed, and has pro- 
ceeded to state, if I rightly understood him, that the voluntary juris- 



145 

diction of the English ecclesiastical courts has not, in any part of it, 
devolved on, and been granted to, the judges of probate here. As 
it is not perhaps material for the present discussion, to ascertain 
precisely what is the true distinction between the voluntary and the 
contcnlious jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts, as understood in 
England, I shall content myself with reading a single authority on 
the subject. Dr. Burn (vol. 1, p. 292) says; — " Voluntary jurisdic- 
tion is exercised in matters which require no judicial proceeding, as 
in granting probate of wills, letters of administration, sequestration 
of vacant benefices, institution, and such like; contcnt'mis jurisdic- 
tion is, where there is an action or judicial process, and consistc^th 
in the hearing and determining of causes between party and party." 

It can be now at once seen,- sir, whether any part of the jurisdic- 
tion exercised by judges of probate in this State, be vulunlary, 
within this definhion of the distinction^jrbetween voluntary and con- 
tentious. 

After these observations, sir, on the general nature and origin of 
fees, accruing in the probate offices, I shall proceed to a considera- 
tion of the charges contained in these articles. 

And the first inquiry is, whether any misconduct or maladministra- 
tion in office, is sufficiently charged, upon the Respondent, in any of 
them. To decide this question, it is necessary to inquire, what is 
the law governing impeachments; and by what rule questions arising 
m such proceedings are to be determined. My learned colleague, 
who has immediately preceded me, has gone very extensively into 
this part of the case. I have little to add, and shall not detain you 
by repetition. I take it, sir, that this is a court; that the Respondent 
is brought here to be tried; that you are his judoes; and that the rule 
of your decision is to be found in the constitution and the law. If 
this be not so, my time is misspent in speaking here, and yours also 
in listening to me. Upon any topics of expediency, or policy; upon 
a question of what may be best, upon the whole; upon a great part 
of those considerations, with which the leading Manager opened his 
case, I have not one word to say. If this be a court, and the Re- 
spondent on his trial before it; if he be to be tried, and can only be 
tried for some offence known to the constitution and the law; and if evi- 
dence against him can be produced only according to the ordinary 
rules, then, indeed, counsel may possibly be of service to him. But 
if other considerations, such as have been plainly announced, are 
to prevail, and that were known, counsel owe no duty to their client 
which could compel them to a totally fruitless effort, for his defence. 
I take it for granted, however, sir, that this court feels itself bound 
by the constitution and the law; and I shall therefore proceed to 
inquire whether these articles, or any of them, are sustained by the 
constitution and the law. 

I take it to be clear, that an impeachment is a prosecution for the 
violation of existing laws; and that the offence, in cases of impeach- 
ment, must be set forth substantially in the same manner as in in- 
dictments. — I say subslantially, fn* there may be, in indictments, 
certain technical requisitions, which are not necessary to be regarded 
in impeachments. The constitution has given this body the power 
of trying impeachments, without defining what an impeachment is, 
19 - N 



146 

and therefore necessarily introducing, with the term itself, its usual 
and received delinition, and the character and incidents which be- 
lono- to it. An impeachment, it is well known, is a judicial proceed- 
ing. It is a trial, and conviction in that trial is to be followed by 
forfeiture and punishment. Hence, the authorities instruct us, that 
the rules of proceeding are substantially the same as prevail in other 
criminal proceedings. (^2. JVoo(lih'Son,6l\. 4.BI. Comin. 259. \.H 
P C. 150. 1. Chiitifs Criminal Law, 169.) There is, on this occa- 
sion, no manner of dificrdion in this court, any more than there is, 
in other cases, in a judge or a juror. It is all a question of law and 
evidence. Nor is there, in regard to evidence, any more latitude, 
than on trials for murder, or any other crime, in the courts of law. 
Rules of evidence are rules of law, and their observance on this 
occasion can no more be dispensed with than any other rule of law. 
Whatever may be imagined' to the contrary, it will commonly be 
found, that a disregard of the ordinary rules of evidence, is but the 
harbinger of injustice. Tribunals which do not regard those rules, 
scldonf regard any other; and those who think they may make free 
with what the law has ordained respecting evidence, generally find 
an apologv for making tree also with what it has ordained respecting 
other things. They who admit or reject evidence, according to no 
other rule'^than their own good pleasure, generally decide everything 
else by the same rule. 

This being, then, a judicial proceeding, the first requisite is, that 
the Respond'ent's offence, should be fully and plainly, subslanlially and 
forniallij described fo him. This is the express requisition of the 
constitution. Whatever is necessary to be proved, must be alleged; 
and it must be alleged with ordinary and reasonable certainty. I 
have already said, that there may be" necessary in indictnients, cer 
tain technical niceties, which are not necessary in cases of impeach- 
ments. There are, for example, certain things necessary to be 
stated, in strictness, in indictments, which, nevertheless, it is not 
necessary to prove precisely as stated. An indictment must set 
forth, among other things, for instance, the particular day when the 
offence is alleced to have been committed; but it need not be proved 
to have been committed on that particular day. It has been holden, 
in the case of an impeachment, that it is sufficient to state the com- 
mission of the offence to have been on or about a particular day. 
Such was the decision, in Lord Winton's case; as may be seen in 
4//( HafselPs Precedents, 297. In that case, the respondent, bemg 
convicted, made a motion to arrest the judgment, on the ground 
that " the impeachment was insufficient, for that the time of commit- 
ting the hio-h treason is not therein laid with sufficient cfWra/i///." 
The principal facts charged in that case were laid to be committed 
''on or about the months of September, October, or mvember last;'' 
and the taking of Prestoii, and the battle there, which are among 
the acts of treason, were laid to be done '^ about the dtli, Wth, Wtli, 
\2th, or ]Sth, of JVovember last.'" 

A question "was put to the judges, " whether in indictments for 
treason or felonv it be necessary lo allege some certain day upon 
which the fact is supposed to be committed; or, if it be only alleged 
in an indictment that the crime was committed on or about a certain 



147 

day, whether that would be sufficient." And the judges answered, 
that it is necessary that there be a certain day laid in the indictment, 
and that to allege that the fact was committed on or about a certain 
day would not be suthcient. The judges were next asked, whether, 
if a certain day be alleged, in an indictment, it be necessary, on the 
trial, to prove the fact to be committed on llial day ; and they answer- 
ed, that it is not necessary. And thereupon the lords resolved, that 
the impeachment was sufficiently certain in point of time. This 
case furnishes a good illustration of the rule, which I think is rea- 
sonable and well founded, that whatever is to be proved must be 
stated, and that no more need be stated. 

In the next place, the matter of the charge must be the breach of 
some known and standing law; the violation of some positive duty. 
If our constitutions of government have not secured this, they have 
done very little indeed for the security of civil liberty. " There are 
two points," said a distinguished statesman, " on which the whole of 
the liberty of every individual depends; one, the trial by jury; the 
other, a maxim, arising out of the elements of justice itself, that no 
man shall, under any pretence whatever, be tried upon anything but 
a known law." These two great points our constitutions have en- 
deavoured to establish; and the constitution of this Commonwealth 
in particular, has provisions on this subject, as full and ample as can 
be expressed in the language in which that constitution is written. 

Allow me then, sir, on these rules and principles to inquire into 
the legal sufficiency of the charges contained in the first article. 

And first, as to the illegality of the time or place of holding the 
court, I beg to know what there is stated, in the article, to shoiv (hat 
illegality^ What fact is alleged, on which the Managers now rely? 
JVot one. — Illegality itself is not a fact, but an inference of law, 
drawn by the Managers, on facts known or supposed by them, but 
not stated in the charge, nor until the present moment made known 
to anybody else. We hear them now contending, that these courts 
were illegal for the following reasons, which they say are true, as 
facts, viz: 

1. That the register was absent; 

2. That the register had no notice to be present; 

3. That parties had not notice to be present. 

Now, not one of these is stated in the article. No one fact or 
circumstance, now relied on as making a case against the defendant, 
is stated in the charge. Was he not entitled to know, I beg to ask, 
what was to be proved a^-ainst him ^ If it was to be contended that 
persons were absent from those courts who ought to have been pres- 
ent, or that parties had no notice, who were entitled to receive 
notice, ought not the Respondent to be iatbrmed, that he might 
encounter evidence by evidence, and be prepared to disprove, what 
would be attempted to be proved? 

This charge, sir, I maintain is wholly and entirely insufficient. 
It is a mere nullity. If it were an indictment in the courts of law, 
it would be quashed, not for want of formality, or technical accuracy, 
but far want of substance in the charge. I venture to say there is 
not a court in the country, from the highest to tlie lowest, in which 
such a charge would be thought sufficient to warrant a judgment. 



148 

The next charge in this article is for receiving illegal fees for 
services performed. I contend that this also is suhsluntialhj defective, 
in not setting out what sum in certain^ the defendant has received 
as illegal fees. It is material to his defence that he should be in- 
formed, more particularly than he here is, of the charge against him. 
If it be merely stated that for divers services respecting one admin- 
istration, he received a certain sum, and for divers others, respect- 
ing another, another certain sum, and that these sums were too large, 
(which is the form of accusation adopted in this case,) he cannot 
know for what service, or on what particular item, he is charged 
with having received illegal fees. The legal and the illegal are 
mixed up together, and he is only told that in the aggregate he has 
received too much. In some of these cases, there is a number of 
items, or particulars, in which fees are charged and received; but 
in the articles these items or particulars are not stated, and he is left 
to conjecture, out pf ten, or it may be twenty ,► particular cases, 
which one it is, that the proof is expected to apply to. 

My colleague has referred to the cases, in which it has been ad- 
judged, that in prosecutions against ofhcers for the alleged taking 
of illegal fees, this general manner of statement is insufficient. It 
is somewhat remarkable, that ancient acts of Parliament should have 
been passed expressly for the purpose of protecting olficers, exerci- 
sing jurisdiction over wills and administration, against prosecutions 
in this form; which were justly deemed oppressive. The st. !i5, Ed. 
3, cap. 9, after reciting, " that the king's justices do take indictments 
of ordinaries, and of their olficers, of extortion, or oppressions, and 
impeach them, without putting in certain, wherein, or whereof, or in 
what manner they have done extortion;" — proceeds to enact, "■ That 
his justices shall not from henceforth impeach the ordinaries, nor 
their olBcers, because of such indictments of general extortions or 
oppressions, unless they say, and put in certain', in what thing, and 
of what, and in what manner the said ordinaries or their officers 
have done extortions or oppressions." 

The charge in this case, ought to have stated the offensive act, 
for which the fee was taken; and the amount of the fee received. 
The Court could then see whether it were illegal. Whereas the 
article, after reciting certain services performed by the Respondent, 
some of which are mentioned in the fee bill, and others are not, al- 
leges that for the business aforesaid the Respondent demanded and 
received oflter and greater fees than are by law allowed. Does this 
mean, that he received excessive fees for every service, or was the 
whole excess charged on one service ? Was the excess taken on 
those particular services, for which a specific fee is given by the 
statute, or was it taken lor those services not mentioned in the fee 
bill at all? But further; the article proceeds to state, that after- 
wards during and ui)on the settlement of said estate, the Respondent 
did demand and receive divers sums, as fees of office, other and 
greater than are by law allowed; without statins; at all xehat services 
tcere rendered^ for which these fees were taken! It is simply a general 
allegation, that the Respondent received from an admuiistrator, in 
the s<t( lenient of an estate, excessive fees; without stating, in any 
manner whatever, what the excess was, or even what services were 



149 

performed. I beg leave to ask, sir, of the learned Managers, whether 
they will, as lawyers, express an opinion before this Court, that this 
mode of accnsation is sufficient? Do they find any precedent for 
it, or any principle to warrant it? If they mean to say, that pro- 
ceedings, in cases of impeachment, are not subject to rule; that the 
general principles applicable to other criminal proceedings do not 
apply; this is an intelligible, though it may be an alarming course of 
argument. If, on the other hand, they admit, that a prosecution by, 
impeachment is to be governed by the general rules applicable to 
other criminal prosecutions; that the constitution is to control it; and 
that it is a judicial proceeding; and, if they recur, as they have already 
frequently done, to the law relative to indictments, for doctrines and 
maxims applicable to this proceeding; I again ask them, and I hope 
in their reply they will not evade an answer, will they, as lawyers, 
before a tribunal constituted as this, say, that in their opinion, this 
mode of charging the Respondent is constitutional and legal? 
Standing in the situation they do, and before such a Court, will they 
say, that, in their opinion, the Respondent is not, constitutionally 
and legally, entitled to require a more particular statement of his 
supposed offences? I think, sir, that candor and justice to the Re- 
spondent require, that the learned Managers should express, on this 
occasion, such opinions on matters of law, as they would be willing, 
as lawyers, here and elsewhere to avow and defend. I must there- 
fore, even yet again, entreat them to say, in the course of their 
reply, whether they maintain that this mode of allegation would be 
sufficient in an indictment; and if not, whether they maintain, that 
in an impeachment, it is less necessary that the defendant be in- 
formed of the facts intended to be proved against him, than it is in 
an indictment. The learned Managers may possi!)ly answer me, that 
it is their business only to argue these questions, and the business 
of the Court to decide them. I cannot think, however, that they 
will be satisfied with such a reply. Under the circumstances in 
which he is placed, the Respondent thinks that the very respectable 
gentlemen who prosecute him, in behalf of the House of Represen- 
tatives, owe a sort of duty, even to him. It is far from his wish, 
however, to interfere with their own sense of their own duty. They 
must judge for themselves, on what grounds they ask his conviction 
from this Court. Yet he has a right to ask — and he does most ear- 
nestly ask, and would repeatedly and again and again, ask, that they 
will state those grounds plainly and distinctly. For he trusts, that 
if there be a responsibility, even beyond the immediate occasion, 
for opinions and sentiments here advanced, they must be entirely 
willing, as professional men, to meet that responsibility. 

I now submit to this Court, whether the supposed offences of 
taking illegal fees, as charged in this article, are set forth legally 
and sufficiently; either by the common rules of proceedings in crimi- 
nal cases, or according to the constitution of the State. 

As to the manner of stating the offence in this article — I mean the 
allegation that the Respondent refused to give, on request, an ac- 
coimt of items of fees received, it appears to me to be substantially 
right, and I have no remarks to make upon it. The question upon 
that will be, whether the fact is proved. 



150 

All the objections which have been made to the first article, apply 
equally to the second; with this further observation, that for the ser- 
vices mentioned in this article the fee bill makes no provision at all. 
The same objections apply also to the third, fourth, and fifth articles. 

It seems to us, sir, that all these charges for receiving illegal fees, 
without setting out, in particular, what service was done, and what 
was the amount of excess, are insufficient to be the foundation of a 
judgment against the Respondent. And especially all the articles, 
in which he is charged with receiving fees for services not specified 
in the fee bill; it being not stated, what he would be properly entitled 
to in such cases, by usage, and the practice of the courts, and there 
being no allegation that the sum received was an unreasonable com- 
pensation for the services performed. In this respect the articles con- 
sider that to be settled by positive law, which is not so settled. The 
second article, for example, alleges that the Respondent demanded 
and received, for certain letters of guardianship granted by him over 
persons 7ion compotes mentis " otha~ and greater fees than are bij law 
alloiced therefor.'''' — This supposes, then, that some fees are allowed 
by law therefor; yet, this is the very case in which it has been con- 
tended by the Managers that no fee whatever was due; there being 
none mentioned in the fee bill. Between the words of the article, 
and the tenor of the argument, there appears to me to be no small 
hostility. Both cannot be right. They cannot stand together. 
There should be either a new argument to support the article, or a 
new article to meet the argument. 

Having made these observations on the legal sufficiency of all 
the articles which charge the Respondent with holding unlawful 
courts, and demanding and receiving unlawful fees, before proceed- 
ing to those which advance charges of a different nature against 
him, allow me to advert to the evidence which has been given, on 
these five first articles respectively; and to consider what unlawful 
act has been proved against the Respondent in relation to the mat- 
ters contained in them. 

In the first place, it is proved, that the Respondent held a special 
Probate Court at Groton, October 14, 1816; and at such court grant- 
ed letters of administration to one Tarbell. This court the register 
did not attend. With respect to parties concerned in the business 
then and there to be transacted, they all had notice, as far as appears; 
and no one has ever been heard to complain on that account. 

It has now been contended, sir, by the learned JManagers, that this 
court was holden unlawfully, because not holden at a time previously 
fixed by law. They maintain that judges of probate can exercise no 
jurisdiction, except at certain terms, when their court is to be holden. 

On the contrary the Respondent has supposed, and has acted on 
the supposition, that he might lawfully hold his court, for the trans- 
action of ordinary business, at such time and place as he might 
think proper; giving due and proper notice to all parties concerned. 
He supposes he miglit so have done, independently of the provis- 
ions of any statute; and he supposes, moreover, that he was authori- 
sed so to do, by the express provision of the statute of 1806. 

The first inquiry, then, is, whether the probate courts, in this 
Commonwealth, be not courts which may be considered as always 



151 

open; and authorised, at ill times, to receive applications, and trans- 
act business; upon due notice to all parties; or whether on the con- 
trary their jurisdiction can only be exercised, in term, or at such 
stated periods and times as may be fixed by law. It is true, that 
the common law courts have usually fixed terms, and can exercise 
their powers only during the continuance of these terms. In Eng- 
land, the termination as well as the beginning of the term is fixed 
by laW. With us, the first day only is fixed, and the courts, having 
commenced on the day fixed by law, hold on as long as the conve- 
nience of the occasion requires. 

In early ages the whole year was one continued term. After the 
introduction of Christianity among the western nations of Europe, 
the governments ordained that their courts should be always open, 
for the administration of justice; for the purpose, among other things, 
of showing their disapprobation of the heathen governments, by 
whom the dies fasti et nefasti were carefully, and as they thought, 
superstitiously regarded. In the course of time, however, the church 
interfered; and prevailed to rescue certain seasons of the year, which 
it deemed holy time, such as Christmas and Easter, &c. from the"* 
agitations of forensic discussion. The necessities of rural labor af- 
terwards added the harvest months to the number of the vacations. 
The vacations were thus carried out of the year, and what was left 
was term. Thus, even with regard to the common law courts, the 
provisions respecting terms were made, not so much for creating 
terms as creating vacations. And for this reason it probably is, that 
as well the termination as the commencement of the term should be 
established by law. 

In respect to the spiritual courts, no such positive regulations, as 
far as I can learn, appear to have been made. Their jurisdiction is 
one which seems necessarily to require more or less of occasional 
as well as stated exercise. The bishop's jurisdiction, over wills 
and administrations, was not local, but personal. Hence he might 
exercise it, not only when he pleased, but where he pleased; within 
the limits of his diocese, or without. He might grant letters of ad- 
ministration, for instance, while without the local limits over which 
his jurisdiction extends, because it is a personal authority which the 
law appoints him to exercise. " The power of granting probates is 
not local, but is annexed to the person of the archbishop, or bishop; 
and therefore a bishop, or the commissary of a bisliop, while absent 
from his diocese, may grant probate of wills, respecting property 
within the same; or if an archbishop, or bishop, of a province or see 
in Ireland happens to be in England, he may grant probate of wills 
relative to effects within his province or diocese." {^Toller, 66. 
4. Burn. 285.) 

Notwithstanding this, however, the canons ordain, that the ordi- 
naries shall appoint proper places and times, for the keeping of their 
courts; such^s shall be convenient for those who are to make their 
appearance tnere; this is for the benefit of suitors. The object is 
that there may be some certain times, and places, when and where 
persons having business to be transacted may expect to find the 
judge; and it by no means necessaiily takes away the power of trans- 
acting business at other times and places. The ordaining of sucli a 



152 

rule plainly shows, that before it was made, these judges held their 
courts when and where they pleased, and only when and where they 
pleased. 

If we recur again to the history of this Commonwealth, we shall 
find, that what necessity or convenience had established in England, 
the same necessity or convenience soon established here. 

By the colony charter, no provision was made for a court for the 
probate of wills and granting administrations. In 1639 it was or- 
dained, that there should be records kept, of all wills, administra- 
tions, and inventories. {An. Ch. 43.) — In 1649 an act was passed 
requiring wills to be proved at the county court, which should next 
be after thirty days from the death of the party; and that adminis- 
tration should be there taken^ &c. {Ibid 204.) 

These county courts were courts of common law jurisdiction, and 
were holden at stated terms. But experience seems soon to have 
shown, that from the nature of probate jurisdiction, its exercise 
could not be conveniently confined to stated terms; for in 1652, an 
act was passed, authorising two magistrates, with the recorder of the 
county court, to allow and approve of wills, and grant administrations; 
the clerk to cause the will or administration to be recorded. {Ibid. 204.) 
The reason of passing this act is obvious. The county court con- 
sisted of many magistrates. They assembled to form a court, only 
at stated terms. On this court the law had conferred the powers of 
probate of wills aiid granting administrations; and like other busi- 
ness it could of course oniy be transacted at stated terms. This 
was found to be an inconvenience, and the law which I have cited 
was passed to remedy it. So that instead of confining the exercise 
of the jurisdiction of these courts to stated terms, we find the law 
has done exactly the contrary. Not only the analogy which they 
bear with other courts of similar jurisdiction, but our own history, 
and the early enactments of the colonial legislature all conspire tp 
refute the notions which have been advanced — I cannot but think 
somewhat incautiously advanced — on this occasion. 

The provisions of the constitution, requiring judges of probate to 
hold their courts on certain fixed days, is perfectly and strictly con- 
sistent nevertheless, with the occasional exercise of their powers at 
other times. The law has had two objects, in this respect; distinct, 
indeed, but consistent. One is that there shotdd be certain fixed days, 
when it should be the duty of the judges to attend to the business 
of their offices, and the applications of suitors; the other, that they 
might, when occasion required, perform such duties, and attend to 
such applications on other days. The learned Managers seem to 
have regarded these provisions of law as repugnant, whereas they 
appear to us to consist perfectly well together. 

If it were possible, sir, that we were still mistaken in all this, 
there is yet the provision of the special law of 1806, which would 
seem to put an end to this part of the case. This statute has been 
already stated; its terms are express, and its object plain beyond all 
doubt or ambiguity. Not only does this act, of itself, afford the 
most complete justification to the Respondent in this case, but it 
proves also, either that the liCgislature or the learned Managers 
have misunderstood the requisition ol' the constitution in regard to 



153 

fixed days for holding probate courts. My colleagues have put this 
part of the argument beyond the power of any answer. I leave it 
where they left it. 

With respect to notice to parties, I have already said that it is not 
at all proved, or pretended to be proved, that there was any per- 
son entitled to notice, who did not receive it. It would be absurd 
and preposterous now to call on the Respondent to give positive 
proof of notice to all persons concerned. As it was his duty to give 
such notice, it is^o be presumed he did give it, until the contrary 
appear Besides, as no omission to give notice is stated in the arti- 
cle, as a fact rendering the court illegal, how is he expected to come 
here prepared to prove notice .'' 

I have little to add, sir, to what my learned colleague who innne- 
diately preceded me has said respecting the necessity of the regis- 
ter's attending these special courts. — One of the learned Managers, 
if I mistake not, (Mr. Shaw) has said, that the statute of 1806, 
which requires notice to parties, requires notice also to the register. 
I see no sort of I'eason for such a construction of the act. The 
words are, that the judge inay appoint such times and places for 
holding his court as he shall deem expedient, giving public notice 
thereof, or iwiifijing all concerned, and has no relation to the otficers 
of the court. Neither the register, nor the crier, nor the door keep- 
er, is, I should imagine, within this province; and yet I suppose one 
to be as much within it as the other. 

The presence of the register cannot be essential to the existence 
of the court, any more than the presence of the clerk is essential 
to the existence of any other court. Like other courts, the court of 
probate has its clerk, called a register, but he is no more part of the 
court, than the clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court is a component 
part of that court. 

No provision appears to have been made by the Province laws 
for the appointment of a register. The ordinary having the whole 
power over the subject of the probate of wills and granting adminis- 
trations, might allow a clerk or register to his surrogate, or not, at 
his pleasure. It was necessary of course that records should be 
kept, but this might be done by the judge himself, as some other 
magistrates keep their own records. There are certain statutes 
which speak of the register's office, but which seem only to mean 
the j)lace where the records are kept. They contain no provision 
for the appointment of such an officer, nor any description of his 
duties. (4. W. and M. ch. 2.) It appears, as I am informed, by the 
Suffolk probate records, that a register was appointed by the gov- 
ernor, by virtue of his power as Supreme Ordinary, immediately af- 
ter the issuing of the Provincial charter. The first provision made 
by law for this officer, if I mistak(^ not, is contained in the statute 
of 1784; (vol. 1. page 155) and the duties of the officer are well 
described in that act. He is to be the register of wills and letters 
of administration, and to be keeper of the records. His signature 
or assent is necessary to the validity of no act whatever. He is to 
record official papers, and to keep the records and documents which 
belong to the office. 
20 



154 

It is quite manifest, from the laws made under the charter, as well 
as those enacted since the adoption of the present government, that 
the presence of the register has not been essential to the existence 
of a legal probate court — the proof of this is, that certain acts or 
things, by these statutes, may be done by the judge without the reg- 
ister. By 6 of Geo. 1. ch. 3. it is provided, that persons to take an 
inventory of one deceased, shall be appointed and sworn by the 
Judge of probate, if the estate be in the town where he dwells, or xcithin 
ten miles thereof ; otherwise by a justice of the peace. (P. L. 222.) 
By 4. Geo. 2. ch. 3. appraisers are to be sworn by the judge, if the 
estate be within ten miles of his dwelling house. (lb. 286.) 

By the act of JNIarch 1784, when a minor lives more than ten 
miles/rom ihe Judge's dwelling house, his choice may be certified, to 
the judge by a justice of the peace. 

These several laws plainly contemplate the performance of cer- 
tain acts by the judge, not at probate courts holden at stated times, 
and without the presence or assistance of the register. 

And now, sir, I have finally to remark, on the subject of holding 
these special courts, the Respondent is proved to have followed the 
practice which he found established in the office when he was ap- 
pointed to it. The existence of this practice is proved, beyond all 
doubt or controversy, by the evidence of Dr. Prescott. 

As to the holding of special courts, therefore, the defendant rests 
his justification, on what he conceives to be the general principle 
of law, on the express provision of the statute, and the usage, which 
has been proved to exist before and at the time when he came into 
the office. 

The charge, Mr. President, in the first article, for taking illegal 
fees, has been fully considered by other counsel. I need not detain 
the Court by further comment. It is true, that for what is called a 
set of administration papers, the Respondent received in this case 
five dollars fifty-eight cents. It is true also, that for the same busi- 
ness, done at a stated court, the fees would have been but three 
dollars and sixty cents. The reason for this difference is fully stat- 
ed in the defendant's answer. But it is also true, that the usual 
sum at stated courts, viz. three dollars and sixty cents, is made up 
by the insertion of fees for sundry services not specified in the fee 
bill. Indeed, the learned Managers have not, as has been so often 
before observed, even yet told us what would have been the precise 
amount of legal fees in this case. They appear to be marvellously 
shy of figures. If the Court adopt the opinion of the learned Man 
agers, that no fees are due, where none are specially provided, and 
that for receiving fees in such cases an officer is impeachable, then 
there is no doubt that the Respondent may be impeached and con- 
victed, for his conduct in regard to every administration which he 
has granted for fifteen years; and there is as little doubt that, on that 
ground any judge of probate in the Commonwealth is impeachable; 
as must [)C well known to every member of this Court, whether 
they suffer it to be proved here or not. 

It is utterly impossible to know, by this article itself, in what it 
was intended to charge the Respondent with having received illegal 



155 

fees. — Was it for the order of notice? — But the statute allows no 
fee for that. Was it for granting administration.^ — But it is not 
stated whether it was a litigated case or not, and therefore it cannot 
be known what he might lawfully receive. 

It is not denied, however, that every paper executed by the judge, 
in this case, and every service performed by him, was proper and 
necessary for the occasion. Even the learned Managers have not 
contended that anything could be dispensed with. If, therefore, the 
amount had not exceeded the usual sum, it would seem past all con- 
troversy, that the Respondent stood justified, if he is right in the 
general grounds which have been assumed. The question then is, 
as to the right to the additional two dollars. And this, I apprehend, 
stands on precisely the same ground, as his right to fees lor services 
not set down in the fee bill, viz; on the ground of a quantum meruit, 
or reasonable compensation for labor performed. This special court 
was holden expressly for the benefit of Tarbel, and at his instance 
and request. He is charged only with the necessary and unavoida- 
ble expenses of the court; expenses which must be borne, either by 
the judge himself, or the party for whose benefit they were incurred. 
It was not so much an extraordinary compensation to the judge, but 
a reimbursement of expenses actually incurred by him. Here 
again he is found only to have followed the established practice of 
the office. He has done no more than his predecessor had done 
It is clearly proved, that that predecessor did habitually hold these 
special courts on request, and that the necessary expenses oi' pro- 
ceeding therein before him did exceed those of similar proceedings 
at the stated courts. There can be no complaint, in this case, of 
the amonnl. If he had a right to receive anything, it must be con- 
ceded he did not receive too much. A practice of this sort may 
lead to inconvenience; possibly to abuse; but it did not originate 
with the Respondent, nor does it appear that abuse has followed it, 
in his hands. If he were authorised to hold these special courts, 
and if they were necessarily attended with some augmentation of 
expense, it would seem perfectly reasonable that those for whom the 
expense was incurred should defray it. The books teach us, that 
" an officer who takes a reward, which has been usual in certain 
cases, tor the more diligent or expeditious performance of his duty, 
cannot be said to be guilty of extortion; for otherwise it would be 
impossible, in many cases, to have the law executed with success." 
(Bac. Jlbr. "Exlortion.''^) These sums were paid vohmtarilij. The 
Respondent in no proper sense demanded them. — He did not refuse 
to do his official duty till they were paid. So of those sums paid 
for services not mentioned in the fee bill. Several of these things 
might have been done by the party himself, or his counsel; such as 
drawing petition, bond, &c. Yet it was usual to have these papers 
prepared at the probate office, and to pay for them, together with 
the other expenses. This being the usual course of things, and the 
party complying with it, without objection, and paying volunianly, 
there can be no reason, I think, to call it extortion. When the 
party applied, in this case, for administration papers, he nnist be 
supposed to have applied for what was itsual. He received what 
everybody else had received for fifteen years, and he paid for what 



156 

he received at the customary rates, without objection. It ought to 
be considered therefore as a vohmtary payment. 

Tliis differs this case altogether Irom that cited from Coke. There 
the party refused to do an official act, till an illegal sum was paid. 
It was an act which the party had a right to have performed — to have 
it //unperformed — and to have it performed for a stated fee — refusing 
to do his duty, in this respect, till other fees were paid, the ofHcer 
doubtless was guilty of extortion. But in this case the money was 
paid voluntarily for services rendered voluntarily. Most of the ser- 
vices were not, strictly speaking, official services. As before observ- 
ed, the petition, bond, Stc. might have been prepared elsewhere, if 
the party had so chosen. If he had so chosen, and had produced 
those papers, regularly prepared and executed, and the judge had 
then refused him a grant of administration, until he had, nevertheless, 
purchased a set of these papers out of the probate office, then this 
case would have resembled the one quoted. As the facts are, I 
think there is no resemblance. 

I have, thus far, endeavoured to show that the Respondent's con- 
duct, in relation to fees, was legal. If we have failed in this, the next 
question is, whether his conduct be so clearly illegal, as to satisfy 
the Court that it must have proceeded from corrupt motives. And 
it is to this part of our case, that we supposed the evidence of what 
had been usual in other courts, and thougbt to be legal by other 
judges would be strictly applicable and higbly important. 

It was certainly our belief, that as the Respondent is accused of 
receiving illegal and excessive fees, in cases where fees are not 
limited by any positive law, the usage and practice of other judges, 
in similar cases, known to the whole Commonwealth, and continued 
for many years, would be evidence on which the Respondent 
might rely to rebut the accusation of intentional wrong. — We have 
shown to this tribunal, that in an indictment on this same statute, 
in the Supreme Judicial Court, evidence of this sort was admitted, 
and the defendant acquitted on the strength of it. We had suppos- 
ed it a plain dictate of common sense, that where a judge was ac- 
cused of acting contrary to law, he might show, if he could, that he 
acted honestly, though mistakenly, and, to this end, he might show 
tliat other judges had understood the law in the same way as he had 
understood it. And if he were able to show, not only that one 
judge, but many, and indeed, all judges had uniformly understood 
the law as he himself had, it would amount to a full defence. The 
learned Managers have opposed the introduction of this evidence; 
and have prevailed on this court to reject it. Setting out with the 
proposition, that, by law, the Respondent could receive no fees, 
wliere none are expressly provided by statute, they have followed 
up this doctrine to the conclusion, that if fees have been taken in 
any such case by the Respondent, he must be convicted, although 
he should be al)le to show, as he is able to show, that every court, 
and every judge in the State has supposed the law to be otherwise, 
than the Managers now assert it, and have uniformly acted upon 
that supposition. I am not, sir, about to enter into another discus- 
sion, on this point. I am persuaded it would be fruitless. The 
questions which we proposed to put to the witnesses are in writing, 



157 

and therefore cannot easily be misrepresented. The Court has, on 
the objection of tlie Managers, overruled these questions, and shut 
out the evidence. As a matter decided in the cause, and for the pur- 
poses of the cause, we must, of course, submit to the decision. Still 
the question recurs, if the known usage and practice of the courts, 
offered no rule or guide, by which the Respondent was to direct his 
conduct, in relation to fees for services not enumerated in the fee 
bill — what rule was to direct him.'' What is the law, which he has 
broken.^ We ask for the rule, which ought to have governed his con- 
duct, and has not governed it; we receive for answer nothing intelligi- 
ble but this, that where the statute has not expressly given fees, no fees 
are due, and it is illegal and impeachable to receive them. If the Court 
should be of that opinion, a case is made out against the Respondent. 
If it should not be of that opinion, as we trust it will not, then we 
submit that no case has been made out against him, on this charge. 

As to the charge of having refused to give Tarl)ell an account of 
items or particulars of the fees demanded, it is enough to say the 
charge is not proved. On his cross examination the witness would 
not state that he asked for items or particulars. He appears simply 
to have wished a general voucher, to show what sums he had paid 
for expenses in the probate office, and to have been told that such 
voucher was not necessary, as the sums would be of course allowed 
in his account. 

I now ask, sir, where is the proof of corrvption, in relation to any 
of the matters charged in this first article.? Where is the moral 
turpitude, which alone ought to subject the Respondent to punish- 
ment.? Is there anything in the case which looks like injustice or 
oppression .? As to the special courts, holden for the convenience 
of the party, no injury arose from them to anybody. The witness 
himself says they were a great accommodation to him, and saved 
the estate much money. One learned Manager has said these 
courts may lead to inconvenience and abuse. He has taxed his in- 
genuity to conjecture, rather than to show, what possible evils might 
hereafter arise from them. Yet he does this with the statute open 
before him, which expressly authorises these courts, and the repeal 
of which would seem to be the proper reznedy to relieve him from 
his apprehensions. 

On the whole, sir, I trust that the Respondent has been able to 
give a satisfactory answer to everything contained in the first article. 
That he is not only not legally proved to be guilty, but that his con- 
duct was in all respects unblamable and inoffensive; — and that he 
will go from this cause, not only acquitted of the charges in the ar- 
ticle, but also, without having suffered, in his reputation, from the 
investigation which it has occasioned. 

Mr President, the remarks which have been made on the first 
article, are generally applicable to the four succeeding, and render 
it unnecessary to comment on those articles, separately and partic- 
ularly. 

The sixth .irticle turns out to be so little supported by any proof, 
that I do not deem it necessary to adxl to what has been said upon 
it. The testimony of Dr. Prescott, and the date of the letter pro- 
duced, set this long forgotten occurrence in its true light. 

o 



158 

The seventh article appears to me to be a mere nullity. It charges 
no official misconduct whatever. The learned Managers, I suppose, 
are ot" the same opinion, otherwise they would have been content 
with our admission of the article, as it stands, and not have con- 
tended so ardently, for the privilege of proving what was not stated. 
I have found myself, sir, more than once mistaken, in the course of 
this trial, but have not felt more sensible, at my own mistakes, on 
any occasion, than Avhen I found myself wrong in supposing that 
neither the learned Managers, nor any other hanjers, could be found 
to contend, that in a criminal case more could be proved against a 
defendant, than had been stated; and that it was not enough for 
such defendant to admit the truth of the facts in the written allega- 
tion against him, precisely as they stood, and to demand the judg- 
ment of the court thereon. The constitution says that every man's 
offence shall be fully and plainly, substantially and formally described 
and set forth. The learned Managers seem so to construe this pro- 
vision, as that, nevertheless, if facts be not alleged which show any 
offence at all to have been committed, still otiier facts may be found, 
under the words unlawfully and corrvptly, which shall amqunt to an 
ofTence. A commentary this, sir, on the constitution of the Com- 
monwealth, of which I imagine the profession generally will riot be 
emulous of dividing the credit with the Honorable Managers. 

This seventh article charges the Respondent with no misbehavior 
as a juds;e. The only offence imputed to him is one which he is 
said to have committed as an attorney. These over-shadowing words, 
" unlawfully and corruptly," beneath the protection of which the 
learned Managers have sought to shelter themselves, are applied to 
the Respondent's conduct simply as an attorney at law, and not as 
judge of probate. 

It is proved, in point of fact, that the Respondent performed cer- 
tain merely clerical labor for a guardian, for which he was paid a 
reasonable and moderate compensation. Tlie sum thus paid him 
was allowed, and as we suppose justly allowed, in the subsequent 
settlement of the guardian's account. 

The eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, thirteenth and fourteenth arti- 
cles have been fully considered by my colleagues, and I will not 
detain the Court witii further remarks on those articles. 

It is the twelfth, of these articles, sir, on which the learned Mana- 
gers seem most confidently to rely. Whatever becomes of the rest 
of the case, here, at least, there is thought to be a tenable ground — 
Here is one verdant spot, where impeachment can flourish; a sort 
of Oasis, smiling amid the general desolation, which the law and 
the evidence have spread round the residue of this accusation. 

1 confess, sir, that I approach to the consideration of this article, 
not without some apprehension. But that apprehension arises from 
nothing in the real nature of the charge, or in the evidence by 
which it is supported. My apprehension and alarm arise from this; 
that in a criniiual trial, on a most solemn and important occasion, 
so much weight should be given to mere coloring, and declamation^ 
under the form of a criminal accusation. In my judgment, sir, 
there is serious cause of alarm, when in a court of this ciiaracter, 
accusations are brought forward, so exceedingly loose and indcfi- 



159 

nite, and arguments are urged in support of them, so little resem 
bling what we are accustomed to hear in the ordinary courts of 
criminal jurisdiction. 

The ofience, in this article, whatever it be, instead of being 
charged and stated in ordinary legal language, is thrown into the 
form of a narrative. A story, taken from the mouth of a heated, 
angry, and now contradicted witness, is written down at large, with 
every imaginable circumstance of aggravation, likely to strike un- 
distinguishing minds; and this story, thus told, is the very form in 
which the article is brought. Here we have, in the article itself, a 
narrative of all the evidence; we have a dialogue between the par- 
ties, are favored so far as to be shown, by marks of quotation, what 
sentiments and sentences belong to the respective parties in that 
dialogue. All convenient epithets, and expletives are inserted in 
this dialogue. We find the " urgent and repeated " demand of the 
Respondent for fees. AVe perceive also that he is made to lead the 
conversation, on all occasions. He proposed to advise and instruct; 
he proposed to allow the sum in the account; and it was, again, on his 
proposition so to insert it, that it was paid. He is represented as 
wanting in manners, and decorum, as well as in official integrity. 
It is said he overheard a conversation; and that therefore he prepar- 
ed to give his advice, before it was asked. In short, sir, this article 
contains whatever is most likely to cause the Respondent to be con- 
victed, before he is heard. I do most solemnly protest against this 
mode of bringing forward criminal charges. I put it to the feeling 
of every honorable man, whether he does not instinctively revolt 
from such a proceeding ? — In a government so much under the do- 
minion of public opinion, and in a case in which public feeling is so 
easily excited, I appeal to every man of an honorable and indepen- 
dent mind, whether it be not the height of injustice to send forth 
charges against a public officer, accompanied with all these circum- 
stances of aggravation and exasperation.'' Here the evidence, as 
yet altogether ex parte, the story told by a willing, if not a prejudiced, 
witness, goes forth with the charge, embodied in the charge itself, 
without any distinction whatever between what is meant to be charg- 
ed as an offence, and the evidence which is to support the charge. 
For my own part, sir, I can conceive of nothing more unjust. 
Would it be tolerated for one moment in a court of law, I beg to 
ask, that a prosecutor, departing from all the usual forms of accusa- 
tion, should tell his own story, in his own way, mix up his evidence 
with his charges, and his own inferences with his evidence, so that 
the accusation, the evidence, and the argument, should all go to- 
gether.^ — A judge would well deserve impeachment and conviction 
who should suffer such an indictment to proceed. 

In this case, the whole matter might have been stated in five lines. 
It is simply this, and nothing more, viz; that the Respondent wish- 
ing, as an attorney, to obtain certain fees from a guardian, promised, 
if they were paid, to allow them in the guardianship account, as 
judge; and being paid he did so allow them. This is the whole 
substance and essence of the charge. 

JVotwithstanding our entire confidence in this Court, we carmot 
but know that the Respondent comes to his trial on this article un- 



160 

der the greatest disadvantages. There is not a member of the Court, 
nor a reading man in the community, who hiis not read tliis charge, 
and thereby seen at once the accusation, and the evidence, which 
was to support it. The whole story is told, with all the minute cir- 
cumstances, and no ground is left, for the reservation of opinion, or 
whereupon charity itself can withhold its condemnation. Far be it 
from me, sir, to impute this to design. I know not the cause; but 
so far as the Respondent is concerned, T know it had been just as 
fair and favorable to him, that the orginal ex parte affidavit, upon 
which the article was founded, should have been headed as JVb. 12, 
and inserted among the articles of impeachment. This, sir, is the 
true ground of the alarm which I feel, in regard to this charge; an 
alarm, I confess, not diminished by perceiving that this article is so 
great a favorite with the learned Managers;" for when obliged to give 
up one and another of their accusations, they have asked us, with 
an air of confidence and exultation, whether we e.xpect them to give 
up the twelfth article also. 

I will now, sir, with your permission, proceed to consider whether 
this article states any legal offence. Stripped of everything but what 
is material, it appears to me to amount to no more than this; viz. 1. 
That the Respondent gave professional advice to a guardian, about the 
concerns of his ward, and received fees for it. 2. That he allowed 
those fees in the guardianship account. If this be the substance of 
the article, then the question follows the division which I have men- 
tioned, and is, 1. Whether he had a right to give such advice, and to 
be paid for it; and, 2. Whether he ha^d a riglit to allow the sum so 
paid in the guardian's account. I think these are the only q /.estions 
to be considered. It cannot be material, certainly, whether Ware, 
the guardian, paid the fee willingly or unwillingly. The fact is true, 
that the Respondent received it. If he had no right to it, then he 
must take the consefpience; if he had a right to it, then there was 
nothing wrong but JVurc''s want of promptitude in paying it. Nor 
is it of any importance, supposing him to be right in allowing this 
fee in the guardian's account, wliether he interlined the charge, in 
an account akcady drawn out, or had the account drawn over, that it 
might be inserted. Here again, we find a circumstance of no mo- 
meiit in itself, put forth to be prominent and striking, in this charge, 
and likely to produce an effect. It is said the sum was allowed by 
interlineation; as if the Respondent had committed one crinie to hide 
another, and had been guilty of /orgYry, to cover up extortion. Sir, 
not only for the sake of the Respondent, but for the sake of all jus- 
tice, and in behalf of all impartiality and candor, I cannot too often 
or too earnestly express my extreme regret, at the manner of this 
charge. On a paper not yet finished and recorded, Avhat harm to 
make an alteration, if it be of a thing in itself proper to be done? 
Is it not done every day, in every court? — Not only affidavits, pro 
cesses, &.c. but also minutes, decrees and judgments of the Court, 
before they arc recorded, are constantly altered bij inlerlineation, by 
the Court "itself, or its order. The paper was in this case before 
the judge. It had not been recorded. If any new claim had then 
been pnxhiced, fit to be allowed, it was proper to allow it, and cer- 
tainly not criminal to insert the allowance by interlineation. 



161 

If, sir, the substance of everything done by the Respondent in 
this case was Uiwfui, then there never can justly be a criminal con- 
viction, founded on the mere manner of doing it; even though the 
manner were believed to be as improper and indecorous as Ware 
would represent it. There is therefore no real inquiry, in this case, 
as I can pe^-ceive, but whether the Respondent had a right to give 
advice, and to be paid for it; and whether he had a right to allow it 
in the account. 

And, in the first place, sir, had the Respondent a right to give 
professional advice to this guardian, respecting the estate of his 
ward.' 

It has frequently, perhaps as often as otherwise happened, that 
judges of probate have been practising lawyers. The statute book 
shows, that it has all along been supposed that this might be the 
case. There are acts, which declare that in particular, specified 
cases, such as ap|>eals fVom their own judgments, they shall not act 
as counsel; implying of course that in other cases they are expect- 
ed so to act, if they see fit. Until the law of f818, there was noth- 
ing to prevent them from being counsel for executors, administrators 
and guardians, as well as any other clients. My colleague who 
first addressed the Court has fully explained the history and state of 
the law in this particular. There being then no positive prohibition, 
is there anything in the nature of the case, that prevents, or should 
prevent, in all cases, a judge of probate from rendering professional 
assistance to executors, administrators or guardians. I say in all 
cases, and supposing no fraudulent or collusive intention. The leg- 
islature has now passed a law on this subject, which is perhaps very 
well, as a general rule, and now, of course, binding in all cases. 
But before the passing of this law, it can hardly be contended, that 
in no case could a judge of probate give professional advice to per- 
sons of this character. — I admit, most undoubtedly, sir, that if a 
case of collusion, or fraud were proved, it would deserve impeach- 
ment. If the judge and the guardian conspired to cheat the ward, 
a criminal conviction would be the just reward for both. They might 
go mto utter disgrace together, and nobody would inquire which was 
the unjust judge, and which the fraudulent guardian; "which was 
the justice, and which was the thiefV But in a case of fair and 
honest character, where the guardian needed professional advice, 
and the judge was competent to give it, I see no legal objection. 
No doubt a man of caution and delicacy would generally be unwil- 
ling to render professional services, upon the value of which he 
might be afterwards called upon officially to form an opinion. He 
would not choose to be under the necessity of judging upon his own 
claim. Still there would seem to be no legal incompatibility. He 
must take care only to judge right. In various other cases, judges 
of probate are or may be called on to make allowances for moneys 
paid to theniselves. It is so in all cases of official fees. It might 
be so, also, in the case of a private debt due from the estate of a 
ward to a judge of probate. If, in this very case, there had been a 
previous debt due from 1Vare''s ward to the Respondent, might he 
not have asked IVare ti> pay it? — Xay, might he not have ^^ demand- 
ed^'' it: might he not even have ventured to make an ^^ urgent and 
21 o* 



162 

repeated request,^'' for it ? — And if he had been so fortunate as to ob- 
tain it, might he not have allowed it in Ware's guardianship account? 
— And although he had been presumptuous enough to insert it by 
intei'linealion, among other articles in the account, before it was final- 
ly allowed and passed, instead of drawing off a new account, would 
even this have been regarded as flagrant injustice, or high enormi- 
ty? — Now I maintain, sir, that the Respondent had in this case a 
right to give professional advice; and a right to be paid for it; and, 
until paid, his claim was a debt, due him from the ward's estate, which 
he might treat like any other debt. He might receive it, as a debt, 
and then as a debt paid allow it in the guardian's account 

As before observed, the first question is, whether he could right- 
fully give this advice. It was certainly a case in which it was 
proper for the guardian to take legal advice of somebody. The 
occasion called for it, and we find the estate to have been essential- 
ly benefited by it. It is among the clearest duties of those who 
act in situations of trust, to take Jegal advice, whenever it is neces- 
sary. If they do not, and loss ensues, they themselves, and not 
those whom they represent, must bear that loss. There can be no 
clearer ground, on which to make executors, administrators, and 
guardians personally liable for losses which happen to estates under 
their care, than negligence in not obtaining legal advice, when nec- 
essary and proper. If, instead of giving this fee to the Respond- 
ent, the guardian had given it to any other professional man, would 
anybody have thought it improper.? — I presume no one would 
Then, what was there, in the Respondent's situation, which render- 
ed it improper for him to give the advice ? It concerned no matter 
that could come before him — It was wholly independent of any pro- 
ceeding arisen, or that could arise, in his court. It interfered in no 
way with his judicial duty, any more than it would have done to have 
given the same advice to the ward himself, before the guardianship. 
He had then as good right to give this advice to the guardian, as he 
would have had to have given it to the ward. 

And, sir, in the second place, I think it plain, that if he had a 
right to give the advice, and to be paid for it, he had not only the 
right but was bound to allow it in the guardian's account. This 
article#s attempted to be supported altogether by accumulating cir- 
cumstances, no one of which bears resemblance to anything like a 
legal offence. Is the Respondent to be convicted for having given 
the advice? "No," it is said, " not that alone, but he demanded a 
fee fur it." Is he to be convicted tlien, for giving advice, and for 
demanding a fee for it, it not being denied that it was a fit occasion 
for somebody's advice.'' — " No, not convicted for that alone, but he 
insisltd on a fee, and was ttyoent, and pressing for it." If he had a 
right to the fee, might he not insist upon it, and be urgent for it, till 
he got it, without a violation of law? "But then he promised 
to allow it in the guardian's account, and obtained it by means of 
this promise, and did afterwards allow it." But if it ought to be 
paid, and the guardian paid it, ought it not to be allowed in his ac- 
count, and could it be improper for the Respondent to say he should 
so allow it, and actually so to allow it? " But did he not allow it by 
iultrlineaiiouf^^ What sort of interlineation? The account was 



163 

before him, unrecorded; this came forward, as a new charge: and 
for convenience and to save labor, it was inserted among other 
charges, without a new draught; and this is all the interlineation there 
is in the case. 

I now ask you, sir — I put it to every member of this Court, upon 
his oath and his conscience, to say on which of these circumstances the 
guilt attaches. Where is the crime"! If this charge had been carried 
to the account without interlineation., would the Respondent have been 
guiltless? — If not, then the interlineation does not constitute his 
guilt. Jf the fee had been paid to some one else, and then allowed^ in 
the same manner it was allowed, would the Respondent have been 
guiltless? U so, then the crime is not in the manner of allowing the 
charge. If the guardian hsLd urged and pressed for the Respondent's 
advice, and in receiving it had paid for it willingly and cheerfully, 
and it had been properly allowed in the account, would the Respon- 
dent then have been guiltless? If so, then his mere giving advice, and 
tahin2:feesfor it, of a guardian, does not constitute his crime. In this 
manner, sir, this article may be analyzed, and it will be found that 
no one part of it contains the criminal matter — and if there be crime 
in no one part, there can be no crime in the whole. It is not a case 
of right acts done with wrong motives, which sometimes may show 
misconduct, all taken together, although each circumstance may be 
of itself indiflerent. Here is official corruption complained of 
We ask, in what it consists. We deman'd to know the legal offence 
which has been committed. A narrative is rehearsed to us, and we 
are told that the result of that must be conviction; but on what legal 
grounds, or for what describable legal reason, I am yet at a loss to 
understand. 

The article mentions another circumstance, which, whether true 
or false, must exceedingly prejudice the Respondent, and yet has no 
just bearing on the case. It is^said the Respondent told Ware, that 
if he would pay this fee, the " overseers need know nothing about 
it." Now, sir, what had the overseers to do with this? — no more 
than the town crier. Those parts of the account which consisted 
of expenses incurred in their neighbourhood, were properly enough, 
though not necessarily, subjected to their examination. They had 
an interest in having the account right, and their approbation was a 
convenient voucher. But what had they to do, with the propriety 
of the guardian's taking legal advice, for the benefit of his ward? 
They could not judge of it, nor were they to approve or disapprove 
his charge for obtaining such advice Why, then, I ask, sir, was 
this observation about the overseers introduced, not only as evidence, 
but into the body of the charge itself, as making a part of that charge ? 
What part of any known legal offence does that observation, or oth- 
ers like it, constitute? Nevertheless, sir, this has had its effect, and 
in my opinion a most unjust effect. 

I will now, sir, beg leave to make a i^ew remarks on the evidence 
adduced in support of this article. Of those facts which I have 
thought alone material, there is no doubt, nor about them any dis- 
pute. It is true, that the Respondent gave the advice, and received 
the fee, and allowed it in the account. If this be guilt, he is guilty. 
As to everything else, in the articles — as to all those allegations 



164 

which go to degrade the Respondent, and in some measure affect his 
reputation, as a man of honor and deUcacy — they rest on Ware, 
and on Ware alone. Now, sir, I only ask for the Respondent the 
common advantages allowed to persons on trial for alleged otlences. 
I only entreat for him from this Court the ohservance of those rules 
which prevail on all other occasions, in respect to the construction 
to be given to evidence, and the allowances which particular consid- 
erations render proper. 

It is proved, that this witness has had a recent misunderstanding 
with the Respondent, and that he comes forward, only since that 
misunderstanding, to bring this matter into public notice. — Threats 
of vengeance, for another supposed injury, he has been proved to 
have uttered more than once. — This consideration alone, should 
lead the Court to receive his evidence with great caution, when he 
is not swearing to a substantial fact, in which he might be contra- 
dicted, but to the manner of a transaction. Here is peculiar room 
for misrepresentation, and coloring, either from mistake or design 
What a public officer does, can be proved; but the mere manner, in 
which he does it, every word he may say, every gesture he may 
make, cannot ordinarily be proved; and when a witness comes forth 
who pretends to remember them, whether he speaks truth or false- 
hood, it is most difficult to contradict him. It is in such a case 
therefore that a prejudiced witness should be received with the ut- 
most caution and distrust. • 

There is, sir, another circumstance of great weight. — 77m is a 
very stale complaint. It is now nearly six years, since this transaction 
tvok place. Why has it not been complained of before? — There is 
no new discovery. All that is known now, was known then. If 
Ware thought of it then, as he thinks of it now, why did he not 
complain then? What has caused his honest indignation so long to 
slumber, and what should cause it to be roused only by a quarrel 
with the Respondent? 

Let me ask, sir, what a grand jury would say to a prosecutor, who, 
with the full knowledge of all the facts, should have slept over a 
supposed injury for six years, and should then come forward to pre- 
fer an indictment? — What would they say especially if they found 
him apparently stimulated by recent resentment, and prosecuting, for 
one supposed ancient injury, with the heat and passion excited 
by another supposed recent injury? Sir, they would justly look on 
his evidence with suspicion, and would undoubtedly throw out his 
bill. Justice would demand it; and in my humble opinion justice de- 
mands nothing less on the present occasion. 

But, sir, there is one rule of a more positive nature, which I think 
applicable to the case; and that is, that a witness detected in one 
misrepresentation is to be credited in nothing. This rule is obvi- 
ously founded in the plainest reason, and it would be totally unsafe 
to disregard it. Now if there be any one part of Ware''s testimony, 
more essential than all the rest, as to its effect in giving a bad ap- 
pearance to the Respondent's conduct, it is that in which he testifies 
that the Respondent volunteered, in the' case, and offered his advice 
before it was asked. This is a most material part of the whole sto- 
ry ; it is indispensable to the keeping of the picture which the learned 



165 

Managers have drawn. — And yet, sir, in this particular, Ware is dis- 
tinctly and positively contradicted by Grout. Now, sir, if we were 
in a court of law, a jury would be instructed, that if they believed 
Ware had wilfully deviated from the truth, in this respect, nothing 
which rested solely on his credit would be received as proved. We 
ask for the Respondent, in this, as in other cases, only the common 
protection of the law. We require only that those rules, which have 
governed other trials, may govern his; and according to these rules, 
1 submit to the Court that it cannot and ought not to convict the Re- 
spondent, even if the facts sworn to would, if proved, warrant a 
conviction, upon the sole testimony of this witness. Even if we 
were sure that there were no other direct departure from the truth, 
yet in the whole of his narrative, and the whole of his manner, we 
see I think indications of great animosity and prejudice. If the whole 
of this transaction were to be recited by a friendly, or a candid wit- 
ness, I do not believe it would strike any body as extraordinary. Any 
mode of telling this story which shall confine the narrative to the essen- 
tial facts, will leave it, in my humble opinion, if not a strictly proper, 
yet by no means an illegal or impeachable transaction. Let it be 
remembered that a great part of his ^tory is such, as cannot be con- 
tradicted, though it be false, in as much as it relates to alleged con- 
versations between him and the Respondent when nobody else was 
present. Wherever the means naturally exist of contradicting or 
qualifying his testimony, there it is accomplished. Whatever circum- 
stance can be found bearing on it, shows that it is in a greater or less 
degree incorrect. For example, Ware would represent that it was an 
important part of this arrangement to keep the payment of the fee 
from the knowledge of the overseers. This was the reason why the 
charge was to be inserted in the existing account, by interlineation. 
Yet the evidence is, that a complete copy of this very interlined ac- 
count was carried home by Ware, where the overseers could see it, 
and would of course perceive exactly what had been done. This is 
utterly inconsistent with any purpose of secrecy or concealment. 

Making just and reasonable allowances, for the considerations 
which I have mentioned, I ask, is any case jJroved, by the rules of 
law, against the Respondent? And further, sir, taking the facts on- 
ly which are satisfactorily established, and supposing the Respon- 
dent's conduct to have been wrong, is it clearly shown to have been 
intentionally wrong? If he ought not to have given the advice, is it 
anything more than an error of judgment? Can this Court have 
so little charity for human nature, as to believe that a man of respec- 
table standing could act corruplhj for so paltry an object? Even al- 
though they should judge his conduct improper, do they believe it to 
have originated in corrupt motives? For my own part, sir, notwith- 
standing all that prejudices and prepossessions may have done, and 
all that the most extraordinary manner of presenting this charge may 
have done, I will not believe, till the annunciation of its judgment 
shall compel me, that this Court will ever convict the Respondent 
upon this article. 

I now beg leave to call the attention of the Court to one or two 
considerations of a general nature, and which appear to me to have 



166 

an important bearing on the merits of this whole cause. — The first 
is this, that I'rom the day when the Respondent was appointed Judge 
of Probate, down to the period at which these articles of impeach- 
ment close — from the year 1805 to 1821 — there is not a single case, 
with the exception of that alleged by Ware, in which it is even pre- 
tended that any secrecy was designed or attempted by the Respon- 
dent: there is not a single case, in which he is even accused of hav- 
ing wished to keep anything out of sight, or to conceal any fact in 
his administration, any charge which he had made, or any fee which 
he had taken. The evidence, on which you are to judge him, is evi- 
dence furnished by himself; and instead of being obliged to seek for 
testimony in sources beyond the Respondent's control, it is his own 
avowed actions, his public administration, and the records of his of- 
fice, which the Managers of the prosecution alone have been able 
to produce. And yet he is charged with having acted ivilfullij and 
corruplhj; as if it were possible that a magistrate, in a high and re- 
sponsible station, with the eyes of the community upon him, should, 
for near twenty years, pursue a course of corrupt and wilful malad- 
ministration, of which every act and every instance was formally and 
publicly put on record by himself, and laid open in the face of the 
community. Is this agreeable to the laws of human nature } Why, 
sir, if the Respondent has so long been pursuing a course of con- 
scious, and wilful, and corrupt maladministration, why do we discov- 
er none of the usual and natural traces of such a course — some 
attempt at concealment, some effort at secrecy; and in all the number- 
less cases, in which he had opportunity and temptation, why is not 
even a suspicion thrown out, that he has attempted to draw a veil of 
privacy over his alleged extoiiions? — Is it in reason that you should 
be obliged to go to his own records for the proof of his pretended 
crimes.'' And can you, with even the color of probability, appeal to 
a course of actions unsuspiciously performed in the face of Heaven, 
to support an accusation of offences in their very nature private, 
concealed, and hidden? 

Another consideration of a general nature to which I earnestly 
ask the attention of this Hon. Court, is this, that<ifter all these ac- 
cusations, which have been brought together against the Respondent, 
in all these articles of impeachment, and with all the industry and 
zeal, with which the matter of them has been furnished to the Hon. 
Managers, he is not accused nor was suspected of the crime, most 
likely to bring an unjust judge to the bar of this Court. Show me 
the unjust judgment he has rendered, the illegal order he has given, 
the corrupt decree he has uttered, the act of oppression he has com- 
mitted. What, sir, a magistrate, charged with a long and deliberate 
perseverance in wilful and corrupt administration, accused of extor- 
tion, thought capable of accepting the miserable bribe of a few cents 
or a tew dollars, for illegal and unconstitutional acts — and that, too, 
in an office, presenting every day the most abundant opportunities, 
and if tlie Respondent were of the character pretended, the most 
irresistible temptation to acts of lucrative injustice; and yet, not one 
instance of a corru|)t, illegal, or oppressive judgment! I do ask the 
permission of this Hon. Court and of every member of it, to put this 



167 

to his own conscience. I will ask him, if he can now name a more 
able and upright magistrate, as shown in all his proceedings and 
judgments, in all the offices of probate in the State? One whose 
records are more regularly and properly kept, whose administration 
is more prompt, correct, and legal, — whose competency to the du- 
ties is more complete, whose discharge of them is more punctual? 
I put this earnestly, sir, to the conscience of every member of this 
Hon. Court. I appeal more especially to my honorable friend, (JVfr. 
Fuji) entrusted with a share of the management of this prosecution, 
and who has been for twenty years an inhabitant of the county of 
Middlesex. I will appeal to him, sir, and I will ask him, whether 
if he knew, that this night his wife should be left husbandless and 
his children fatherless, there is a magistrate in the State, in whose 
protection he had rather they should be left, than in that of the Re- 
spondent? Forgetting, for a moment, that he is a prosecutor, and 
remembering only that he is a citizen of the same county, a member 
of the same profession, with an acquaintance of twenty years stand- 
ing, I ask him if he will say that he believes there is a county in the 
State, in which the office of Judge of Probate has been better ad- 
ministered for twenty years, than it has been in the county of Mid- 
dlesex by this Respondent. And yet, sir, you are asked to disgrace 
him. You are asked to fix on him the stigma of a corrupt and un- 
just judge, and condemn him to wear it through life. 

Mr. President, the case is closed ! The fate of the Respondent 
is in your hands. It is for you now to say, whether, from the law 
and the facts as they have appeared before you, you will proceed to 
disgrace and disfranchise him. If your duty calls on you to con- 
vict him, convict him, and let justice be done ! but I adjure you let 
it be a clear undoubted case. Let it be so for his sake, for you are 
robbing him of that, for which with all your high powers, you can 
yield him no compensation; let it be so for your own sakes, for the 
responsibility of this day's judgment is one, which you must carry 
with you through your life. For myself, I am willing here to relin- 
quish the character of an advocate, and to express opinions by which 
I am willing to be bound, as a citizen of the community. And I 
say upon my honor and conscience, that I see not how, with the law 
and constitution for your guides, you can pronounce the Respondent 
guilty. I declare, that I have seen no case of wilful and corrupt of- 
ficial misconduct, set forth according to the requisition of the con- 
stitution, and proved according to the common rules of evidence. I 
see many things imprudent and ill judged; many things that I could 
wish had been otherwise; but corruption and crime I do not see. 
Sir, the prejudices of the day will soon be forgotten; the passions, 
if any there be, which have excited or favored this prosecution, will 
subside; but the consequence of the judgment you are about to 
render will outlive both them and you. The Respondent is now 
brought, a single unprotected individual, to this formidable bar of 
judgment, to stand against the power and authority of the State. I 
know you can crush him, as he stands before you, and clothed as 
you are with the sovereignty of the State. You have the power " to 
change his countenance, and to send him away." — Nor do I remind 



168 

you that your judgment is to be rejudged by the community; and 
as you have summoned him for trial to this high tribunal, you are 
soon to descend yourselves from these seats of justice, and stand 
before the higher tribunal of the world. I would not fail so much 
in respect to this Hon. Court, as to hint that it could jironounce a 
sentence, which the community will reverse. No sir, it is not the 
world's revision, which I would call on you to regard; but that of 
your own consciences when years have gone by, and you shall look 
back on the sentence you are about to render. If you send away 
the Respondent, condemned and sentenced, from your bar, you are 
yet to meet him in the world, on which you cast him out. — You will 
be called to behold him a disgrace to his family, a sorrow and 
a shame to his children, a living fountain of grief and agony to 
himself. 

If you shall then be able to behold him only as an unjust judge, 
whom vengeance has overtaken, and justice has blasted, you will 
be able to look upon him, not without pity, but yet without remorse. 
But, if, on the other hand, you shall see, whenever and wherever 
you meet him, a victim of prejudice or of passion, a sacrifice to a 
transient excitement; if you shall see in him, a man, for whose con- 
demnation any provision of the constitution has been violated, or any 
principle of law broken down; then will he be able — humble and 
low as may be his condition — then will he be able to turn the cur- 
rent of compassion backward, and to look with pity on those who 
have been his judges. If you are about to visit this Respondent 
with a judgment which shall blast his house; if the bosoms of the 
innocent and the amiable are to be made to bleed, under your in- 
fliction, I beseech you to be able to state clear and strong grounds 
for your proceeding. Prejudice and excitement are transitory, and 
will pass away. Political expediency, in matters of judicature, is 
false and hollow principle, and will never satisfy the conscience of him 
who is fearful that he may have given a hasty judgment. I earnestly 
entreat you, for your own sakes, to possess yourselves of solid rea- 
sons, founded in truth and justice, for the judgment you pronounce, 
which you can carry with you, till you go down into your graves; 
reasons, which it will require no argument to revive, no sophistry, 
no excitement, no regard to popular favor, to render satisfactory to 
your consciences; reasons which you can appeal to, in every crisis 
of your lives, and which shall be able to assure you, in your own 
great extremity, that you have not judged a fellow creature without 
mercy. 

Sir, I have done with the case of this individual, and now leave 
him in your hands. But I would yet once more appeal to you as 
public men; as statesmen; as men of enlightened minds, capable 
of a large view of things, and of foreseeing the remote consequen- 
ces of important transactions; and, as such, I would most earnestly 
implore you to consider fully of the judgment you may pronounce. 
You are about to give a construction to constitutional provisions, 
which may adhere to that instrument for ages, either for good or 
evil. I may perhaps overrate the importance of this occasion to 
the public welfare; but I confess it does appear to me that if this 



169 

body give its sanction to some of the principles which have been 
advanced on this occasion, then there is a power in the State above 
the constitution and the law; a power essentially arbitrary and con- 
centrated, the exercise of which may be most dangerous. If im- 
peachment be not under the rule of the constitution and the laws, 
then may we tremble, not only for those who may be impeached, 
but for all others. If the full benefit of every constitutional provis- 
ion be not extended to the Respondent, his case becomes the case 
of all the people of the Commonwealth. The constitution is their 
constitution. They have made it for their own protection, and for 
his among the rest. They are not eager for his conviction. They 
are not thirsting for his blood. If he be condemned, without hav- 
ing his offences set forth, in the manner which they, by their con- 
stitution have prescribed; and proved, in the manner which they, 
by their laws have ordained, then not only is h'e condemned unjustly, 
but the rights of the whole people disregarded. For the sake of the 
people themselves, therefore, I would resist all attempts to convict 
by straining the laws, or getting over their prohibitions. — ^I hold up. 
before him the broad shield of the constitution; if through that he 
be pierced and fall, he will be but one sufferer, in a common catas- 
trophe. 



0<5> 



ARGUMENT 



IN THE CASE OF GIBBONS vs. OGDEN, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF 
THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUARY TERM, 1824. 

This was an appeal from the Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of 
Errors of the State of New York. Aaron Ogden filed his bill in the Court of Chancery of 
that State, against Thomas Gibbons, setting forth the several acts of the Legislature thereof, 
enacted for the purpose of securing to Robert R. Livingston and Robert Fulton, the exclu- 
sive navigation of all the waters wilhin the jurisdiction of tliat State, with boats moved by 
fire or steam, for a term of years which has not yet expired ; and authorising the Chancellor 
to award an injunction, restraining any person whatever from navigating those waters with 
boats of that description. The bill stated an assignment from Livingstcm and Fulton to one 
John R. Livingston, and from him to the complainant, Ogden, of the right to navigate the 
waters between Elizabethtown, and other places in New Jersey, and the city of New York; 
and that Gibbons, the defendant below, was in possession of two steam boats, called the 
Stondinger and tlie Bellona, which were actvially employed in running between New York 
and Elizabethtown, in violation of the exclusive privilege conferred on the complainant, 
and praying an injunction to restrain the said Gibbons from using the said boats, or any 
other propelled by fire or steam, in navigating the waters within the territoiy of New York. 
The injunction having been awarded, the answer of GiVjVjons was filed, in which he stated, 
that the boats employed by him were duly enrolled and licensed, to be employed in carrying 
on the coasting trade, under the act of Congress, passed the 18th of February, 1793, c. 8. 
entitled, " An act for enrolling and licensing ships and vessels to be employed in the coast- 
in-^ trade and fisheries, and for regulating the same." And the defendant insisted on his 
right, in virtue of such licenses, to navigate the waters between Elizabethtown and the city of 
New York, the said acts of tlie Legislature of the State of New York to the contrary notwith- 
standino-. At" the hearing, the Chancellor perpetuated tlie injunction, being of tlie opinion, 
that the said acts were not repugnant to the constitution and laws of tlie United States, and 
were valid. This decree was afiirmed in die Comt lor the Trial of Impeachments and 
Correction of Errors, which is the highest Court of law and e(|uity in the State, before which 
the cause could be carried, and it was thereupon brought to this Court by appeal. 

Mr. Webster, for the appellant, admitted, that there was a very- 
respectable weight of authority in favor of the decision, which was 
sought to be reversed. The laws in question, he knew, had been 
deliberately re-enacted by the Legislature of New York; and they 
had also received the sanction, at difierent times, of all her judicial 
tribunals, than which there were tew, if any, in the country, more 
justly entitled to respect and deference. The disposition of the 
Court would be, undoubtedly, to support, if it could, laws so passed 
gind so sanctioned. He admitted, therefore, that it was justly expect- 
ed of him that he should make out a clear case; and unless he did 
so, he did not hope for a reversal. It should be remembered, how- 



171 

ever, that the whole of this branch of power, as exercised by this 
Court, was a power of revision. The question must be decided by 
the State Courts, and decided in a particular manner, before it could 
be brought here at all. Such decisions alone gave the Court juris- 
diction; and therefore, while they are to be respected as the judg- 
ments of learned judges, they are yet in the condition of all deci- 
sions from which the Taw allows an appeal. 

It would not be a waste of time to advert to the existing state of 
the facts connected with the subject of this litigation. The use of 
steam boats, on the coasts, and in the bays and rivers of the country, 
had become very general. The intercourse of its different parts 
essentially depended upon this mode of conveyance and transporta- 
tion. Rivers and bays, in many cases, form the divisions between 
States; and thence it was obvious, that if the States should make 
regulations for the navigation of these waters, and such regulations 
should be repugnant and hostile, embarrassment would necessarily 
happen to the general intercourse of the community. Such events 
had actually occurred, and had created the existing state of things. 

By the law of New York, no one can navigate the bay of JVew 
York, the North River, the Sound, the lakes, or any of the waters 
of that State, by st6am vessels, inthout a license from the grantees of 
JVew York, under penalty of forfeiture of the vessel. 

By the law of the neighbouring State of Connecticut, no one can 
enter her waters with a steam vessel having such license. 

By the law of New Jersey, if any citizen of that State shall be 
restrained, under the New York law, from using steam boats between 
the ancient shores of New Jersey and New York, he shall be en- 
titled to an action for damages, in JYcw Jerscij, with treble costs 
against the party who thus restrains or impedes him under the law of 
JYew York ! This act of New Jersey is called an act of retortion 
against the illegal and oppressive legislation of New York; and 
seems to be defended on those grounds of public law which justify 
reprisals between independent States. 

It would hardly be contended, that all these acts were consistent 
with the laws and constitution of the United States. If there were 
no power in the general government, to control this extreme bellig- 
erent legislation of the States, the powers of the government were 
essentially deficient, in a most important and interesting particular. 
The present controversy respected the earliest of these State laws, 
those of New York. On those, this Court was now to pronounce; 
and if they should be declared to be valid and operative, he hoped 
somebody would point out lehere the State right stopped, and on 
what grounds the acts of other States were to be held inoperative 
and void. 

It would be necessary to advert more particularly to the laws of 
New York, as they were stated in the record. The first was passed 
March 19th, 1787. By this act, a sole and exclusive right was 
granted to John Fitch, of making and using every kind of boat or 
vessel impelled by steam, in all creeks, rivers, bays, and waters, 
withm the territory and jurisdiction of New York, for fourteen years. 

On the 27th of March, 1798, an act was passed, on the sugges 
tion that Fitch was dead, or had withdrawn from the State, without 



172 

having made any attempt to use his privilege, repealing the grant 
to him, and conferring similar privileges on Robert R. Livingston, for 
the term of twenty years, on a suggestion, made by him, that he was 
possessor of a mode of applying the steam engine to projicl a boat, on neio 
and advantageous principles. On the 5th of April, 1803, another act 
was passed, by which it was declared, that the rights and privileges 
granted to R. R. Livingston, by the last act, should be extended to 
him and Robert Fidton, for twenty years, from the passing of this act. 
Then there is the act of April 11, 1808, purporting to extend the 
monopoly, in point of time, five years for every additional boat, the 
whole duration, however, not to exceed thirty years; and forbidding 
any and all persons to navigate the waters of the State, with any 
steam boat or vessel, without the license of Livingston and Fidton, 
under penalty of forfeiture of the boat or vessel. And, lastly, comes 
the act of April 9, 181 1, for enforcing the provisions of the last men- 
tioned act, and declaring, that the forfeiture of the boat or vessel, 
found navigating against the provisions of the previous acts, shall 
be deemed to accrue on the day on which such boat or vessel should 
navigate the waters of the State; and that Livingston and Fulton 
might immediately have an action for such boat or vessel, in like 
manner as if they themselves had been dispossessed thereof by force; 
and that on bringing any such suit, the defendant therein should be 
prohibited, by injunction, from removing the boat or vessel out of 
the State, or using it within the State. There were one or two 
other acts mentioned in the pleadings, which principally i-espected the 
time allowed for complying with the condition of the grant, and 
were not material to the discussion of the case. 

By these acts, then, an exclusive right is given to Livingsto7i and 
Fulton, to use steam navigation on all the waters of New York, for 
thirty years from 1808. 

It is not necessary to recite the several conveyances and agree- 
ments, stated in the record, by which Ogden, the plaintiff below, de- 
rives title under Livingston and Fulton, to the exclusive use of part 
of these waters. 

The appellant being owner of a steam boat, and being found navi- 
gating the waters between New Jersey and the city of New York, 
over which waters Ogden, the plaintiff below, claimed an exclusive 
right, under Livingston and Fulton, this bill was filed against him by 
Ogden, in October, 1818, and an injunction granted, restraining him 
from such use of his boat. This injunction was made perpetual, on 
the final hearing of the cause, in the Court of Chancery; and the 
decree of the Chancellor has been duly affirmed in the Court of 
Errors. The right, therefore, which the plaintifi' below asserts to 
have and maintain his injunction, depends obviously on the general 
validity of the New York lavs, and, especially, on their force and 
operation as against the right set up by the defendant. This right 
he states, in his answer, to be, that he is a citizen of New Jersey, 
and owner of the steam boat in question; that the boat was a vessel 
of more than twenty tons burden, duly enrolled and licensed for car- 
rijing on the coasting trade, and intended to be employed by him, in 
that trade, between Elizabethtown, in New Jersey, and the city of 
New York; and was actually employed in navigating between those 



173 

places, at the time of, and until notice of the injunction from the 
Court of Chancery was served on him. 

On these pleadings the substantial question is raised: Are these 
laws such as the Legislature of New York had a right to pass? If 
so, do they, secondly, in their operation, interfere with any right en- 
joyed under the constitution and laws of the United States, and are 
they, therefore, void, as far as such interference extends? 

It may be well to state again their general purport and effect, and 
the purport and effect of the other State laws, which have been en- 
acted by way of retaliation. 

A steam vessel, of any description, going to New York, is for- 
feited to the representatives of Livingston and Fulton, unless she have 
their license. 

Going from New York, or elsewhere, to Connecticut, she is pro- 
hibited from entering the waters of that State, if she have such license. 

If the representatives of Livingston and Fulton, in JYctv York, car- 
ry into efiect, by judicial process, the provision of the New York 
laws, against any citizen of New Jersey, they expose themselves to 
a statute action, in JVeiv Jersetj, for all damages, and treble costs. 

The New York laws extend to all steam vessels; to steam frigates, 
steam ferry-boats, and all intermediate classes 

They extend to public as well as private ships; and to vessels em- 
ployed in foreign commerce, as well as to those employed in the 
coasting trade. '^ 

The remedy is as summary as the grant itself is ample; for imme- 
diate confiscation, without seizure, trial, or judgment, is the penalty 
of infringement. 

In regard to these acts, he should contend, in the first place, that 
they exceeded the power of the Legislature; and, secondly, that if 
they could be considered valid, for any purpose, they were void, 
still, as against any right enjoyed under the laws of the United 
States, with which they came in collision; and that, in this case, 
they were found interfering with such rights. 

He should contend, that the power of Congress to regulate com- 
merce, was complete and entire, and, to a certain extent, necessarily 
exclusive; that the acts in question were regulations of commerce, 
in a most important particular; and JifTecting it in those respects, in 
which it was under the exclusive authority of Congress. He stated 
this first proposition guardedly. He did not mean to say that alt 
regulations which might, in their operation, aflbct commerce, were 
exclusively in the power of Congress; but that such j)oirer as had 
been exercised in this case, did not remain with the States. Noth- 
ing was more complex than commerce; and in such an age as this, no 
words embraced a wider field than commercial regulation. Almost 
all the business and intercourse of lite may be connected, inciden- 
tally, more or less, with commercial regidations. But it was only 
necessary to apply to this part of the constitution the well settled 
rules of construction. Some powers are holden to be exclusive In 
Congress, from the use of exclusive words in the grant; others, from 
the prohibitions on the States to exercise similar powers; and others, 
again, from the nature of the powers themselves. It has been by 
this mode of reasoning that the Court has adjudicated on many im- 



174 

portant questions; and the same mode is proper here. And, as some 
powers have been holden exclusive, and others not so, under the 
same form of expression, from the nature of the different powers 
respectively; so, where the power, on any one subject, is given in 
general words, like the power to regulate commerce, the true method 
of construction would be, to consider of what parts the grant is 
composed, and which of those, from the nature of the thing, ought 
to be considered exclusive. The right set up in this case, under 
the laws of New York, is a monopoly. ]Now, he thought it very 
reasonable to say, that the constitution never intended to leave with 
the States the power of granting monopolies, either of trade or of 
navigation; and, therefore, that as to this, the commercial power was 
exclusive in Congress. 

It was in vain to look for a precise and exact definition of the 
powers of Congress, on several subjects. The constitution did not 
undertake the task of making such exact definitions. In conferring 
powers, it proceeded in the way of enumeration, stating the powers 
conferred, one after an(jther, in few words; and, where the power 
was general, or complex in its nature, the extent of the grant must 
necessarily be judged of, and limited, by its object, and by the na- 
ture of the power. 

Few things were better known, than the immediate causes w^hich 
led to the adoption of the present constitution; and he thought noth- 
ing clearer, than that the prevailing motive was to regulate commerce; 
to rescue it from the embarrassing and destructive consequences, 
resulting from the legislation of so many different States, and to 
place it under the protection of a imifoi'm law. The great objects 
were commerce and revenue; and they were objects indissolubly con- 
nected. By the confederation, divers restrictions had been imposed 
on the States; but these had not been found sufficient. No State, 
it was true, could send or receive an embassy; nor make any treaty; 
nor enter into any compact with another State, or with a foreign 
power; nor lay duties, interfering with treaties which had been en- 
tered into by Congress. But all these were found to be far short of 
what tlie actual condition of the country required. The States 
could still, each for itself, regulate commerce, and the consequence 
was, a perpetual jarring and hostility of commercial regulation. 

In tlie history of the times, it was accordingly found, that the 
great topic, urged on all occasions, as showing the necessity of a 
new and different government, was the state of trade and commerce. 
To benefit and imj)rove these, was a great object in itself; and it 
became greater when it was regarded as the only means of enabling 
the country to pay the public debt, and to do justice to those who 
had most effectually labored for its independence. The leading 
state papers of the time are full of this topic. The New Jersey 
resolutions* complain, that the regulation of trade was in the power 
* of the several States, within their separate jurisdiction, in such a 
degree as to involve many difficulties and embarrassments; and they 
express an earnest opinion, that the sole and exclusive power of regu- 
lating trade with foreign States, ought to be in Congress. Mr. 
Witherspoon's motion in Congress, in 1781, is of the same general 

* 1 Laws U. S. p 28. 



175 

character; and the report of a committee of that body, in 1785, is 
still more emphatic. It declares that Congress ought to possess the 
sole and exclusive power of regulating trade, as well with foreign 
nations, as between the States.* The resolutions of Virginia, in 
January, 1786, which were the immediate cause of the convention, 
put forth this same great object. Indeed, it is the only object stated 
in those resolutions. There is not another idea in the whole docu- 
ment. The entire purpose for which the delegates assembled at 
Annapolis, was to devise means for the uniform regulation of trade. 
They found no means, but in a general government; and they recom- 
mended^a convention to accomplish that purpose. Over whatever 
other interests of the country this government may diffuse its bene- 
fits, and its blessings, it will always be true, as matter of historical 
fact, that it had its immediate origin in the necessities of commerce; 
and, for its immediate object, the relief of those necessities, by re- 
moving their causes, and by establishing a uniform and steady system. 
It would be easy to show, by reference to the discussions in the 
several State conventions, the prevalence of the same general top- 
ics; and if any one would look to the proceedings of several of the 
States, especially to those of Massachusetts and New York, he 
would see, very plainly, by the recorded lists of votes, that wherever 
this commercial necessity was most strongly felt, there the proposed 
new constitution had most friends. In the New York convention, 
the argument arising from this consideration was strongly pressed, 
by the distinguished person whose name is connected with the present 
question. 

We do not find, in the history of the formation and adoption of 
the constitution, that any man speaks of a general concurrent power, 
in the regulation of foreign and domestic trade, as still residing in 
the States. The very object intended, more than any other, was to 
take away such power. If it had not so provided, the constitution 
would not have been worth accepting. 

He contended, therefore, that the people intended, in establishing 
the constitution, to transfer, from the several States to a general 
government, those high and important powers over commerce, which, 
in their exercise, were to maintain an uniform and general system. 
From the very nature of the case, these powers must be exclusive; 
that is, the higher branches of commercial regulation must be exclu- 
sively committed to a single hand. What is it that is to be regula- 
ted.? Not the commerce of the several States, respectively, but the 
commerce of the United States. Henceforth, the commerce of the 
States was to be an unil; and the system by which it was to exist 
and be governed, must necessarily be complete, entire, and uniform. 
Its character was to be described in the flag which waved over it, 
E PLURiBus UNUM. Now, how could individual States assert a right 
of concurrent legislation, in a case of this sort, without manifest 
encroachment and confusion.' It should lie repeated, that the words 
used in the constitution, " to regulate commerce," are so very gen- 
eral and extensive, that they might be construed to cover a vast 
field of legislation, part of which has always been occupied by State 
laws; and, therefore, the words must have a reasonable construction, 

* 1 Laws U. s. p. 50. 



176 

and the power should be considered as exclusively vested in Con- 
gress, so far, and so tar only, as the nature of the power requires. 
And he insisted, that the nature of the case, and of the power, did 
imperiously require, that such important authority as that of grant- 
ing monopolies of trade and navigation, should not be considered as 
still retained by the States. 

It is apparent, from the prohibitions on the power of the States, 
that the general concurrent power was not supposed to be left with 
them. And the exception, out of these prohibitions, of the inspec- 
tion Imvs, proves this still more clearly. Which most concerns the 
commerce of this country, that New York and Virginia sh?>uld have 
an uncontrolled power to establish their inspection for tlour and to- 
bacco, or that they should have an uncontrolled power of granting 
either a monopoly of trade in their own ports, or a monopoly of navi- 
gation over all the waters leading to those ports ? Yet, the argu- 
ment on the other side must be, that, although the constitution has 
sedulously guarded and limited the tirst of these powers, it has left 
the last wholly unlimited and uncontrolled. 

But, although much had been said, in the discussion on former 
occasions, about this supposed concurrent power iq, the States, he 
found great difficulty in understanding what was meant by it. It 
was generally qualified, by saying, that it was a power, by which 
the States could pass laws on the subjects of commercial regulation, 
which would be valid, until Congress should pass other laws con- 
trolling them, or inconsistent with them, and that then the State laws 
must yield. What sort of concurrent powers were these, which could 
not exist together.' Indeed, the very reading of the clause in the 
constitution must put to flight this notion of a general concurrent 
power. The constitution was formed for all the States; and Con- 
gress was to have power to regulate commerce. Now, what is the 
import of this, but that Congress is to give the rule — to establish 
the system — to exercise the control over the subject.' And, can 
more than one power, in cases of this sect, give the rule, establish 
the system, or exercise the control? As it is not contended that 
the power of Congress is to be exercised by a supervision of State 
legislation; and, as it is clear, that Congress is to give the general 
rule, he contended, that this power of giving the general rule was 
transferred, by the constitution, from the States to Congress, to be 
exercised as that body might see fit. And, consequently, that all 
those high exercises of power, which might be considered as giving 
the rule, or establishing the system, in regard to great commercial 
interests, were necessarily left with Congress alone. Of this char- 
acter he considered monopolies of trade or navigation; embargoes; 
the system of navigation laws; the countervailing laws, as against 
foreign states; and other important enactments respecting our con- 
nexion with Such states. It appeared to him a most reasonable con- 
struction, to say, that in these respects, the power of Congress is 
exclusive, from the nature of the power. If it be not so, where is 
the limit, or who shall fix a boundary for the exercise of the power 
of the States? Can a State grant a monopoly of trade? Can New 
York shut her ports to all but lier own citizens? Can she refuse ad- 
mission to ships of particular nations? The argument on the other 



177 

side is, and must be, that she might do all these things, until Con- 
gress should revoke her enactments. And this is called concurrent 
legislation. What contusion such notions lead to, is obvious enough. 
A power in the States to do anything, and everything, in regard to 
commerce, till Congress shall undo it, would suppose a state of 
things, at least as bad as that which existed before the present cori- 
stitution. It is the true wisdom of these governments to keep their 
action ^s distinct as possible. The general government should not 
seek to operate where the States can operate with more advantage 
to the community; nor should the States encroach on ground, which 
the public good, as well as the constitution, refers to the exclusive 
control of Congress. 

If the present state of things — these laws of New York, the laws 
of Connecticut, and the laws of JNevv Jersey, had been all present- 
ed, in the convention of New York, to the eminent person whose 
name is on this record, and who acted, on that occasion, so impor- 
tant a part; if he had been told, that, after all he had said in favor 
of the new government, and of its salutary effects on commercial 
regulations, the time sTiould yet come, when the North River would 
be shut up by a monopoly from New York; the Sound interdicted 
by a penal law of Connecticut; reprisals authorised by New Jersey, 
against citizens of New York; and when one could not cross a ferry, 
without transhipment; does any one suppose he would have admitted 
all this, as compatible with the government which he was recom- 
mending? 

This doctrine of a general concurrent power in the States, is in 
sidious and dangerous. If it be admitted, no one can say where it 
will stop. The States may legislate, it is said, wherever Congress 
has not made a plenary exercise of its power. But who is to judge 
whether Congress has made this plenarij exercise of power? Con- 
gress has acted on this power; it has done all that it deemed wise; 
and are the States now to do whatever Congress has left undone? 
Congress makes such rules as, in its judgment, the case requires; 
and those rules, whatever they are, constitute the system. 

All useful regulation does not consist in restraint; and that which 
Congress sees tit to leave free, is a part of its regulation, as much 
as the rest. 

He thought the practice under the constitution sufficiently evin- 
ced, that this portion of the commercial power was exclusive in Con- 
gress. When, before this instance, have the States granted monop- 
oUes? When, until now, have they interfered with the navigation 
of the country ? The pilot laws, the health laws, or quarantine 
laws, and various regulations of that class, which have been recog- 
nised by Congress, are no arguments to prove, even if they are to 
be called commercial regulations, (which they are not,) that other 
regulations, more directly and strictly commercial, are not solely 
within the power of Congress. There was a singular fallacy, as he 
humbly ventured to think, in the argument of very learned and 
most respectable persons, on this subject. That argument alleges, 
that the States have a concurrent power with Congress, of regula- 
ting commerce; and its proof of this position is, that the States have, 
without any question of their right, passed acts respecting turnpike 
23 



178 

roads, toll bridges, and ferries. These are declared to be acts of 
coininercial regulation, alFecting not only the interior commerce of 
the State itself, but also commerce between ditferent States. There- 
fore, as all these are coinincrciul re2;ulaiions, and are yet acknow- 
ledged to be rightfully established by the States, it follows, as is 
supposed, that the States must have a concurrent power to regulate 
commerce. 

Now, what was the inevitable consequence of this mode of rea- 
soning? Does it not admit the power of Congress, at once, upon 
all these minor objects of legislation? If all these be regulations of 
commerce, within the meaning of the constitution, tlien, certainly, 
Congress having a concurrent power to regulate commerce, may 
establish ferries, turnpikes, bridges, &c. and provide for all this de- 
tail of interior legislation. To sustain the interference of the State, 
in a high concern of maritime commerce, the argument adopts a 
principle which acknowledges the right of Congress, over a vast 
scope of internal legislation, which no one has heretofore supposed 
to be within its powers. But this is not all; for it is admitted, that 
wiien Congress and the States have power to legislate over the same 
subject, the power of Congress, when exercised, controls or extin- 
guishes the State power; and, therefore, the consequence would 
seem to follow, from the argument, that all State legislation, over 
such subjects as have been mentioned, is, at all times, liable to the 
superior power of Congress; a consequence, which no one would 
admit for a moment. The truth Avas, he thought, that all these 
things were, in their general character, rather regulations of police 
than of conmierce, in the constitutional understanding of thaf term. 
A road, indeed, might be a matter of great commercial concern. 
In many cases it is so; and when it is so, he thought there was no 
doubt of the power of Congress to make it. But, generally speak- 
ing, roads, and bridges, and ferries, though, of course, they affect 
commerce and intercourse, do not obtain that importance and eleva- 
tion, as to be deemed commercial regulations. A reasonable con- 
struction nujst be given to the constitution; and such construction 
is as necessary to the just power of the States, as to the authority 
of Congress. Quarantine laws, for example, may be considered as 
affecting commerce; yet they are, in their nature, heallh laxcs. In 
England, we speak of the power of regulating commerce, as in 
Parliament, or the King, as arbiter of commerce; yet the city of 
London enacts health laws. Would any one infer from that circum- 
stance, that the city of London had concurrent power with Parlia- 
ment or the Crown to regulate commerce'^ or, that it might grant a 
monoply of the navigation of the Thames? While a health law is 
reasonable, it is a health law; but if, under color of it, enactments 
should be made for other purposes, such enactments might be void. 

In the discussion in the New York Courts, no small reliance was 
placed on the law of that State prohibiting the importation of slaves, 
as an example of a commercial regulation, enacted by State author- 
ity. That law may or may not be constitutional and valid. It has 
been referred to generally, but its particular provisions have not 
been stated. When they are more clearly seen, its character may 
be better determined. 



179 

It might further be argued, that the power of Congress over these 
high branches of commerce was exclusive, from the consideration 
that Congress possessed an exclusive admiralty jurisdiction. That 
it did possess such exclusive jurisdiction, would hardly be contested. 
No State pretended to exercise any jurisdiction of that kind. The 
States had abolished their Courts of Admiralty, when the constitu- 
tion went into operation. Over these waters, therefore, or, at least, 
some of them, which are the subject of this monoply, New York 
has no jurisdiction whatever. They are a part of the high sea, and 
not within the body of any county. The authorities of that State 
could not punish for a murder, committed on board one of these 
boats, in some places within the range of this exclusive grant. This 
restraining of the States from all jurisdiction, out of the bodies of 
their own counties, shows plainly enough, that navigation on the 
high seas, was understood to be a matter to be regulated only by 
Congress. It is not unreasonable to say, that what are called the 
waters of New York, are, to purposes of navigation and commer- 
cial regulation, the waters of the United States. There is no ces- 
sirn, indeed, of the waters themselves, but their use, for those 
purposes, seemed to be entrusted to the exclusive power of Con- 
gress. Several States have enacted laws, which would appear to 
imply their conviction of the power of Congress, over navigable 
waters, to a greater extent. 

If there be a concurrent power of regulating commerce on the 
high seas, there must be a concurrent admiralty jurisdiction, and a 
concurrent control of the waters. It is a common principle, that 
arms of the sea, including navigable rivers, belong to the sovereign, 
so far as nuvigalion is concerned. Their use is navigation. The 
United States possess the general power over navigation, and, of 
course, ought to control, in general, the use of navigable waters. 
If it be admitted, that for purposes of trade and navigation, the North 
River, and its bay, are the river and bay of New York, and the 
Chesapeake the bay of Virginia, very great inconveniences and 
much confusion might be the result. 

It might now be well to take a nearer view of these laws, to see 
more exactly what their provisions were, what consequences have 
followed from them, and what would and might follow from other 
Bimilar laws. 

The first grant to John Fitch, gave him the sole and exclusive 
right of making, employing, and navigating, all boats impelled by 
fire or steam, '' in all creeks, rivei-s, bays, and wattrs, v;ilhin the terri- 
tory and jurisdiction of the State.'''' Any other person, navigating 
such boat, was to forfeit it, and to pay a penalty of a hundred 
pounds. The subsequent acts repeal this, and grant similar privi- 
leges to Livingston and Fidton: and the act of 1811 provides the 
extraordinary and summary remedy, which has been already stated. 
The river, the bay, and the marine league along the shore, are all 
within the scope of this grant. Any vessel, therefore, of this de- 
scription, coming into any of those waters, without a license, whether 
from another State, or from abroad, whether it be a public or private 
vessel, is instantly forfeited to the grantees of the monopolv. 



180 

Now, it must be remembered, that this grant is made as an exer- 
cise of sovereign polilical ponder. It is not an inspection law, nor a 
health law, nor passed by any derivative authority; it is professedly 
an act of sovereign power. Of course, there is no limit to the pow- 
er, to be derived from the purpose for which it is exercised. If ex- 
ercised for one purpose, it may be also for another. No one can 
inquire into the motwes which influence sovereign authority. It is 
enough, that such power manifests its will. The motive alleged in 
this case is, to remunerate the grantees for a benefit conferred by 
them on the public. But there is no necessary connexion between 
that benetit and this mode of rewarding it; and if the State could 
grant this monopoly for that purpose, it could also grant it for any 
other purpose. It could make the grant for money; and so make 
the monopoly of navigation over those waters a direct source of 
revenue. When this monopoly shall expire, in 1838, the State may 
continue it, for any pecuniary consideration which the holders may 
see fit to offer, and the State to receive. 

If the State may grant this monopoly, it may also grant another, 
for other descriptions of vessels; for instance, for all sloops. 

If it can grant these exclusive privileges to a few, it may grant 
them to many; that is, it may grant them to all its own citizens, to 
the exclusion of everybody else. 

But the waters of New York are no more the subject of exclu- 
sive grants by that State, than the waters of other States are subjects 
of such grants by those other States. Virginia may well exercise, 
over the entrance of the Chesapeake, all the power that New York 
can exercise over the bay of New York, and the waters on the 
shore. The Chesapeake, therefore, upon the principle of these 
laws, may be the subject of State monopoly; and so may the bay of 
Massachusetts. But this is not all. It requires no greater power, 
to grant a monopoly of trade, than a monopoly of navigation. Of 
course. New York, if these acts can be maintained, may give an 
exclusive right of entry of vessels into her ports. And the other 
States may do the same. These are not extreme cases. We have 
only to suppose that other States should do what New York has 
already done, and that the power should be carried to its full extent. 

To all this, there is no answer to be given except this, that the 
conciwi-ent power of the States, concurrent though it be, is yet subor- 
dinate to the legislation of Congress; and that, therefore, Congress 
may, when it pleases, annul the State legislation; but, until it does 
so annul it, the State legislation is valid and effectual. What is 
there to recommend a construction which leads to a result like this.'' 
Here would be a perpetual hostility; one Legislature enacting laws, 
till another Legislature should repeal them; one sovereign power 
giving 4^he rule, till another sovereign power should abrogate it; and 
all this under the idea of concurrent legislation! 

But further; under this concurrent pouer, the State does that which 
Congress cannot do; that is, it gives preferences to the citizens of 
some States over those of others. I do not mean here the advan- 
tages conferred by the grant on the grantees; but the disadvantages 
to which it subjects all the other citizens of New York To impose 



181 

an extraordinary tax on steam navigation visiting the ports of New 
York, and leaving it free everywhere else, is giving a preference 
to the citizens of other States over those of New York. This Con- 
gress could not do; and yet the St^te does it: so that this power, at 
first subordinate, then concurrent, now becomes paramount. 

The people of New York have a right to be protected against 
this monopoly. It is one of the objects for which they agreed to 
this constitution, that they should stand on an equality in commer- 
cial regulations; and if the government should not insure them that, 
the promises made to them, in its behalf, would not be performed. 

He contended, therefore, in conclusion on this point, that the 
power of Congress over these high branches of commercial regula- 
tion, was shown to be exclusive, by considering what was wished 
and intended to be done, when the convention, for forming the con- 
stitution, was called; by what was understood, in the State conven- 
tions, to have been accomplished by the instrument; by the prohi- 
bitions on the States, and the express exception relative to inspection 
laws; by the nature of the power itself; by the terms used, as 
connected with the nature of the power; by the subsequent under- 
standing and practice, both of Congress and the States; by the 
grant of exclusive admiralty jurisdiction to the federal government; 
by the manifest danger of the opposite doctrine, and the ruinous 
consequences to which it directly leads. 

It required little now to be said, to prove that this exclusive grant 
is a law regulating commerce; although, in some of the discussions 
elsewhere, it bad been called a law of police. If it be not a rep;vla- 
tion of commerce, then it follows, against the constant admission on 
the other side, that Congress, even by an express act, could not 
annul or control it. For if it be not a regulation of commerce, 
Congress has no concern with it. But the granting of monopolies 
of this kind is always referred to the power over commerce. It 
was as arbiter of commerce that the King formerly granted such 
monopolies.* This is a law regulating commerce, inasmuch as it 
imposes new conditions and terms on the coasting trade, on foreign 
trade generally, and on foreign trade as regulated by treaties; 
and inasmuch as it interferes with the free navigation of naviffable 
waters. 

If, then, the power of commercial regulation, possessed by Con- 
gress, be, in regard to the great branches of it, exclusive; and if 
this grant of New York be a commercial regulation, aftecting com- 
merce, in respect to these great branches, then the grant is void, 
whether any case of actual collision had happened or not. 

But, he contended, in the second place, that whether the grant 
were to be regarded as wholly void or not, it must, at least, be in- 
operative, when the rights claimed under it came in collision with 
other rights, enjoyed and secured under the laws of the United 
States; and such collision, he maintained, clearly existed in this 
case. It would not be denied that the law of Congress was para- 
mount. The constitution has expressly provided for that. So 
that the only question in this part of the case is, whether the two 
rights be inconsistent with each other. The appellant had a right 

* 1 Bl. Com. 273. 4 Bl. Com. 160. 



182 

to go from New Jersey to New York, in a vessel, owned by him- 
self, of the proper legal description, and enrolled and licensed ac- 
cording to law. This r/o/ji belonged to him as a citizen of the 
United States. It was derived under the laws of the United States, 
and no act of the Legislature of New York can deprive him of it, 
any more than such act could deprive him of the right of holdino- 
lands in that State, or of suing in its Courts. It appears from the 
record, that the boat in question was regularly enrolled, at Perth 
Amboy, and properly licensed for carrying on the coasting trade. 
Under this enrolment, and with this license, she was proceeding to 
New York, when she was stopped by the injunction of the Chan- 
cellor, on the application of the New York grantees. There can 
be no doubt that here is a collision, in fact; that which the appellant 
claimed as a right, the respondent resisted; and there remains nothing 
now but to determine, whether the appellant had, as he contends, 
a right to navigate these waters; because, if he had such rio-ht, it 
must prevail. Now, this right was expressly conferred by the laws 
of the United States. The first section of the act of February, 
1793, c. 8. regulating the coasting trade and fisheries, declares, 
that all ships and vessels, enrolled and licensed as that act provides, 
"and no others, shall be deemed ships or vessels. of the United 
States, entitled to the privileges of ships or vessels employed in the 
coasting trade or fisheries." The fourth section of the same de- 
clares, "that in order to the licensing of any ship or vessel, for 
carrying on the coasting trade or fisheries," bond shall be given, 
&c. according to the provisions of the act. And the same section 
declares, that the owner having complied with the requisites of the 
law, " it shall be the duty of the Collector to grant a license for 
carrying on the coasting trade;" and the act proceeds to give the 
form and words of the license, which is, therefore, of course, to be 
received as a part of the act; and the words of the license, after 
the necessary recitals, are, " license is hereby granted for the said 
vessel to be employed in carrying on the coasting trade." 

Words could not make this authority more express. 

Tiie Court below seemed to him, with great deference, to have 
mistaken the object and nature of the license. It seemed to have 
been of opinion that the license had no other intent or eflect than 
to ascertain the ownership and character of the vessel. But this 
was the peculiar office and object of the enrolment. That document 
ascertains that the regular proof of ownership and character has 
been given; and the license is given, to confer the right, to which 
the party has shown himself entitled. It is the authority which the 
master carries with him, to prove his right to navigate freely the wa- 
ters of the United States, and to carry on the coasting trade. 

In some of the discussions which had been had on this question, 
it had been said, that Congress had only provided for ascertaining 
the ownership and property of vessels, but had not prescribed to 
what use th(;y might be applied. But this he thought an obvious 
error; the whole ol)ject of the act regulating the coasting trade, was 
o declare what vessels shall enjoy the benefit of being used in the 
coaj-.ing trade. To secure this nse to certain vessels, and to deny 
it to Others, was precisely the purpose for which the act was passed. 



183 

The eii-or, or what he humbly supposed to be the error, in the judg- 
ment of the Court below, consisted in that Court's having thought, 
that although Congress might flcf, it had not yet acted, in such a way 
as to confer a right on the appellant: whereas, if a right was not 
given by this law, it never could be given; no law could be more 
express. It had been admitted, that supposing there was a provision 
in the act of Congress, that all vessels duly Ucensed should be at 
liberty to navigate, for the purpose of trade and commere, over all 
the navigable harbours, bays, rivers and lakes, within the several 
States, any law of the States, creating particular privileges as to 
any particular class of vessels, to the contrary notwithstanding, the 
only question that could arise, in such a case, would be, whether 
the law was constitutional; and that if that was to be granted or de- 
cided, it would certainly, in all Courts and places, overrule and set 
aside the State grant. 

Now, he did not see that such supposed case could be distinguished 
from the present. We shov/ a provision in an act of Congress, that 
all vessels, duly licensed, may carry on the coasting trade; nobody 
doubts the constitutional validity of that law; and we show that this 
vessel was duly licensed according to its provisions. This is all 
that is essential in the case supposed. The presence or absence of 
a no7i obstante clause, cannot atlect the extent o-r operation of the act 
of Congress. Congress has no power of revoking State laws, as a 
distinct power. It legislates over subjects; and over those subjects 
which are within its power, its legislation is supreme, and necessa- 
rily overrules all inconsistent or repugnant State legislation. If 
Congress were to pass an act expressly revoking or annulling, in 
whole or in part, this New York grant, such an act would be wholly 
useless and inoperative. If the New York grant be opposed to, or 
inconsistent with, any constitutional power which Congress has ex- 
ercised, then, so far as the incompatibility exists, the grant is nuga- 
tory and void, necessarily, and by reason of the supremacy of tlie 
law of Congress. But if the grant be not inconsistent with any exer- 
cise of the powers of Congress, then, certainly. Congress has no 
authority to revoke or annul it. Such an act of Congress, therefore, 
would be either unconstitutional or supererogatory. The laws of 
Congress need no non obstante clause. The constitution makes them 
supreme, when State laws come into opposition to them; so that m 
these cases there is no question except this, whether there be, or be 
not, a repugnancy or hostility between the law of Congress and the 
law of the State. Nor is it at all material, in this view, whether 
the law of the State be a law regulating commerce, or a law of po- 
lice, or by whatever other name or character it may be designated. 
If its provisions be inconsistent with an act of Congress, they are 
void, so far as that inconsistency extends. The whole argument, 
therefore, is substantially and effectually given up, when it is admit- 
ted, that Congress might, by express terms, abrogate tRe State grant, 
or declare that it should not stand in the way of its own legislation; 
because, such express terms would add nothing to the etlect and 
operation of an act of Congress. 

He contended, therefore, upon the whole of this point, that a case 
of actual collision had been made out, in this case, between the 



184 

State grant and the act of Congress; and as the act of Congress was 
entirely unexceptionable, and clearly in pursuance of its constitu- 
tional powers, the State grant must yield. 

There were other provisions of the constitution of the United 
States, which had more or less bearing on this question: " No State 
shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage." 
Under color of grants like this, that prohibition might be wholly 
evaded. This grant authorises Messrs. Livingston and Fulton to 
'icense navigation in the waters of New York. They, of course, 
license it on their own terms. They may require a pecuniary con- 
sideration, ascertained by the tonnage of the vessel, or in any other 
manner. Probably, in fact, they govern themselves, in this respect, 
by the size or tonnage of the vessels, to which they grant licenses. 
Now, what is this but substantially a tonnage duty, under the law 
of the State? Or does it make any difference, whether the receipts 
go directly to her own treasury, or to the hands of those to whom 
she has made the grant? 

There was, lastly, that provision of the constitution which gives 
Congress power to promote the progress of science and the usefi;i 
arts, by securing to authors and inventors, for a limited time, an ex- 
clusive right to their own writings and discoveries. Congress had 
exercised this power, and made all the provisions which it deemed 
useful or necessary. The States might, indeed, like munificent in- 
dividuals, exercise their own bounty towards authors and inventors, 
at their own discretion. But to confer reward by exclusive grants, 
even if it were but a part of the use of the writing or invtintion, was 
not supposed to be a power properly to be exercised by the States. 
Much less could they, under the notion of conferring rewards in 
such cases, grant monopolies, the enjoyment of which should be 
essentially incompatible with the exercise of rights holden under the 
laws of the United States. He should insist, hoAvever, the less on 
these points, as they were open to counsel, who would come after 
him, on the same side, and as he had said so much upon what ap- 
peared to him the more important and interesting part of the argu- 
ment. 



ARGUMENT 



IN THE CASE OF OGDEN vs. SAUNDERS, IN THE SUPREME COURT 
OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY TERM, 1827. 

This was an action of Assumpsit brought originally in the Circuit Court of Louisiana 
by Saunders, a citizen of Kentucky, against Ogden, a citizen of Louisiana. The phiinlirt' 
below declared upon certain bills of exchange, drawn on the 30th of September, 1806, by 
one Jordan, at Lexington, in the State of Kentucky, upon the defendant below, Ogden, in 
the city of New York, (the defendant then being a citizen and resident of the State of New 
York,) accepted by him at the city of New York, and protested for non-payment. 

The defendant telow pleaded several pleas, among which was a certificate of discharge 
under the act of the legislature of the State of New York, of April 3d, 1801, for die relief 
of insolvent debtors, commonly called the threefourths act. 

The jury foiuid the facts in the form of a special verdict, on which die Court rendered a 
judgment for the plaintiff below, and the cause was brought by writ of error before this 
Court. The question, which arose under this plea as to the validity of the law of New 
York as being repugnant to the constitution of the United States, was argued at Februiry 
term, 1824, by Mr. Clay, Mr. D. B. Ogden, and Mr. Haines, for the plaintiff in error, 
and by Mr. Webster and Mr. IVheaton, for the defendant in error, and the cause was 
continued for advisement until the present term. It was again argued at the present term, by 
Mr. IVebster and Mr. IVheaton, against the validity, and by die Attorney General, Mr. 
E. Livingston, Mr. D. B. Ogden, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Sampson, for the validity. 

Mr. Wheaton opened the argument for the defendant in error ; he was followed by the 
counsel for the plaintiff in error ; and Mr. Webster replied as follows : 

The question arising in this case is not more important, nor so 
important even, in its bearing on individual cases of private right, 
as in its character of a pubHc political question. The constitution 
was intended to accomplish a great political object. Its design was 
not so much to prevent injustice or injury in one case, or in suc- 
cessive single cases, as it was to make general salutary provisions, 
which, in their operation, should give security to all contracts, sta- 
bility to credit, uniformity among all the States, in those things which 
materially concerned the foreign commerce of the country, and their 
own credit, trade, and intercourse among themselves. The real 
question is, therefore, a much broader one than has been argued. 
It is this, whether the constitution has not, for general political pur- 
poses, ordained that bankrupt laws should be established only by na- 
tional authority ? We contend that such was the intention of the 
constitution; an intention, as we think, plainly manifested by a con- 
sideration of its several provisions i 
•24 Q* 



186 

The act of New York, under which this question arises, provides, 
that a debtor may be discharged from all his debts, upon assigning 
his property to trustees for the use of his creditors. When applied 
to the discharge of debts, contracted before the date of the law, this 
Court has decided that the act is invalid.* The act itself makes no 
distinction between past and future debts, but provides for the dis- 
charge of both in the same manner. In the case, then, of a debt 
already existing, it is admitted, that the act does impair the obliga- 
tion of contracts. We wish the full extent of this decision to be 
well considered. It is not, merely, that the legislature of the State 
cannot interfere, by law, in the particular case of A. or B., to injure 
or impair rights which have become vested under contracts; but it 
is, that they have no power, by general law, to regulate the manner 
in which all debtors may be discharged from subsisting contracts; in 
other words, they cannot pass general bankrupt laws, to be applied 
in presenii. Now, it is not contended that such laws are unjust, and 
ought not to be passed by any legislature. It is not said they are un- 
wise or impolitic. On the contrary, we know the general experience 
is, that when bankrupt laws are established, they make no distinction 
between present and future debts. While all agree that special 
acts, made for individual cases, are unjust, all admit that a general 
law, made for all cases, may be both just and politic. The ques- 
tion, then, which meets us in the threshold, is this: if the constitu- 
tion meant to leave the States the power of establishing systems of 
bankruptcy to act upon future debts, what great or important object, 
of a political nature, was answered, by denying the power of making 
such systems applicable to existing debts? 

The argument used in Shir^es vs. Cronminshield, was, at least, a 
plausible and consistent argument. It maintained, that the prohibi- 
tion of the constitution was levelled only against interferences in 
individual cases, and did not apply to general laws, Avhether those 
laws were retrospective or prospective in their operation. But the 
Court rejected that conclusion. It decided, that the constitution 
was intended to apj)ly to general laws, or systems of bankruptcy; that 
an act, providing that all debtors might be discharged from all cred- 
itors, upon certain conditions, was of no more validity than an act, 
providing that a jjiirticular debtor, A., should be discharged on the 
same conditions from his particular creditor, B. 

It being thus decided that general laws are thus within the pro- 
hibition of the constitution, it is for the plaintiff in error now to show, 
on what ground, consistent with the general objects of the constitu- 
tion, he can establish a distinction, which can give effect to those 
general laws in their application to future debts, while it denies 
them effect in their application to subsisting debts. The words are, 
that " no State shall pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts.''^ 
The general operation of all such laws is, to impair that obligation; 
that is, to discharge the obligation without fulfilling it. This is ad- 
mitted; and the only ground taken for the distinction to stand on is, 
that when the law was in existence, at the time of the making the 
contract, the parties must be supposed to have reference to it, or, as 
it is usually expret^sed, the law is made a part of the contract. Be- 
* Stiirges vs Ciowniiishield, t IVheut. Rep. 122. 



187 

fore considering what foundation there is for this argument, it may 
be well to inquire, what is that obligation of contracts of which the 
constitution speaks, and whence is it derived? 

The definition given by the Court in Sturges vs. Cronminsliicld^ is 
sufficient for our present purpose. " A contract," say the Court, 
" is an agreement to do some particular thing; the law binds the 
party to perform this agreement, and this is the obligation of the 
contract." 

It may, indeed, probably, be correct to suppose the constitution 
used the words in somewhat of a more popular sense. We speak, 
for example, familiarly of a usurious contract, and ye* we say, 
speaking technically, that a usurious agreement is no coni'Hct. 

By the obligation of a contract, we should understand the consti- 
tution to mean, the duty of performing a legal agreement. If the 
contract be lawful, the party is bound to perlbrm it. But bound by 
what? What is it that binds him? And this leads to what we regard 
as a principal fallacy in the argument on the other side. That argu- 
ment supposes, and insists, that the whole obligation of a contract 
has its origin in the municipal law. This position we controvert. 
We do not say that it is that obligation which springs from conscience 
merely; but we deny that it is only such as springs from the particu- 
lar law of the place where the contract is made. It must be a law- 
ful contract, doubtless; that is, permitted' and allowed; because 
society has a right to prohibit all such contracts, as well as all such 
actions, as it deems to be mischievous or injurious. But if the con- 
tract be such as the law of society tolerates, in other words, if it be 
lawful, then we say, the duty of performing it springs from universal 
law. And this is the concurrent sense of ail the writers of authority 

The duty of performing promises is thus shown to rest on universal 
law; and if, departing from this well established principle, we now 
follow the teachers who instruct us that the obligation of a contract 
has its origin in the law of a particular State, and is, in all cases, 
Avhat that law makes it, and no more, and no less, we shall probably 
find ourselves involved in inexplicable difficulties. A man promises, 
for a valuable consideration, to pay money in New York; is the ob- 
ligation of that contract created by the laws of that State ? or does 
it subsist independent of those laws? We contend that the obliga- 
tion of a contract, that is, the duty of performing it, is not created 
by the law of the particular place where it is made, and dependent on 
that law for its existence; but that it may subsist, and does subsist, 
without that law, and independent of it. The obligation is in the con- 
tract itself, in the assent of the parties, and in the sanction of universal 
law. This is the doctrine of Grolmfi, Vaflcl, Btirleiaoquij Puiliier, and** 
Riiiherforlh. The contract, doubtless, is necessarily to be enforced 
by the municipal law of the place where performance is demanded. 
The municipal law acts on the contract after it is made, to compel 
its execution, or give damages for its violation. But this is a very 
different thing from the same law, being the origin or fountain of 
the contract. Let us illustrate this matter by an example. Two 
persons contract together in New York for the delivery, by one to 
the other, of a domestic animal or utensil of husbandry, or a weapon 
of war. This is a lawful contract, and while the parties remain in 



188 

New York, it is to be enforced by the laws of that State. But if 
they remove with the article to Pennsylvania or Maryland, there a 
new law comes to act upon the contract, and to apply other reme- 
dies if it be broken. Thus far the remedies are furnished by the 
laws of society. But suppose the same parties to go together to a 
savage wilderness, or a desert island, beyond the reach of the laws 
of any society; the obligation of the contract still subsists, and is as 
perfect as ever, and is now to be enforced by another law, that is, 
the law of nature, and the party to whom the promise was made, 
has a right to take by force the animal, the utensil, or the weapon, 
thaS. was promised to him. The right is as perfect here, as it was 
in Pennsylvania, or even in New York; but this could not be so if 
the obligation were created by the law of New Y^ork, or were de- 
pendent on that law for its existence, because the laws of that State 
can have no operation beyond its territory. Let us reverse this ex- 
ample. Suppose a contract to be made between two persons cast 
ashore on ausuninhabited territory, or in a place over which no law 
of society extends. There are such places, and contracts have been 
made there by individuals casually there, and these contracts have 
been enforced in Courts of law in civilized communities. Whence 
do such contracts derive their obligation, if not from universal law? 
If these considerations show us that the obligation of a lawful con- 
tract does not derive its force from the particular law of the place 
where made, but may exist where that law does not exist, and be 
enforced where that law has no validity, then it follows, we contend, 
that any statute which diminishes or lessens its obligation, does im- 
pair it, whether it precedes or succeeds the contract in date. The 
contract having an independent origin, whenever the law comes to 
exist together with it, and interferes with it, it lessens, we say, and 
impairs its own original and independent obligation. In the case 
before the Court, the contract did not owe its existence to the par- 
ticular law of New Y^ork; it did not depend on that law, but could 
be enforced without the territory of that State, as well as within it. 
Nevertheless, though legal, though thus independently existing, 
though thus binding the partjPeverywhere, and capable of being en- 
forced everywhere, yet, the statute of New York says, that it shall 
be discharged without payment. This, we say, impairs the obliga-- 
tion of that contract. It is admitted to have been legal in its incep- 
tion, legal in its full extent, and capable of being enforced by other 
tribunals according to its terms.- An act, then, purporting to dis- 
charge it without payment, is, as we contend, an act impairing its 
obligation. 

^ IJut here we meet the opposite argument, stated on different oc- 
casions in diflerent terms, but usually summed up in this, that the 
law itself is a part of the contract, and, therefore, cannot impair it. 
What does this mean? I.,et us seek for clear ideas. It does not 
mean that the law gives any particular construction to the terms of 
the contract, or that it makes tlie promise, or the consideration, or 
the time of performance, other than tliey arc expressed in the instru- 
ment itself It can only mean, that it is to be taken as a part of the 
contract, or Understanding (if tiie parties, that the contract itself 
shall be enlurced by such laws and regulations, respecting remedy 



189 

and for the enforcement of contracts, as are in being in the Stata 
where it is made at the time of entering into it. This is meant, or 
nothing very clearly intelligible is meant, by saying the law is part 
of the contract. 

There is no authority in adjudged cases, for the plaintiff in error, 
but the State decisions which have been cited, and, as has already 
been stated, they all rest on this reason, that the law is part of the 
contract. 

Against this we contend, 

1st. That if the proposition were true, the consequence would not 
follow. 

2d. That the proposition itself cannot be maintained. 

1 . If it were true that the law is to be considered as part of the 
contract, the consequence contended for would not follow; because, 
if this statute be part of the contract, so is every other legal or 
constitutional provision existing at the time which affects the con- 
tract, or which is capable of affecting it; and especially this very 
article of the constitution of the United States is part of the con- 
tract. The plaintiff in error argues in a complete circle. He sup- 
poses the parties to have had reference to it because it was a binding 
law, and yet he proves it to be a binding law only upon the ground 
that such reference was made to it. We come before the Court 
alleging the law to be void as unconstitutional; they stop the inquiry 
by opposing to us the law itself Is this logical? Is it not precisely 
objedio ejus, cttjus dissolutio pelthirl If one bring a bill to set aside 
a judgment, is that judgment itself a good plea in bar to the bill.? 
We propose to inquire if this law is of force to control our contract, 
or whether, by the constitution of the United States, such force be 
not denied to it. The plaintiff in error stops us by saying that it 
does control the contract, and so arrives shortly at the end of the 
debate. Is it not obvious, that supposing the act of New York to 
be a part of the contract, the question still remains as undecided as 
ever. What is that act ? Is it a law, or is it a nullity ? A thing of 
force, or a thing of no force? Suppose the parties to have contem- 
plated this act, what did they contemplate? its words only, or its 
legal effect? its words, or the force which the constitution of the 
United States allowed to it? If the parties contemplated any law, 
they contemplated all the law that bore on their contract, the aggre- 
gate of all the statute and constitutional provisions. To suppose 
that they had in view one statute, without regarding others, or that 
they contemplated a statute without considering that paramount 
constitutional provisions might control or qualify that statute, or ab- 
rogate it altogether, is unreasonable and inadmissible. " This con- 
tract," says one of the authorities relied on, "is to be construed as if 
the law were specially recited in it." Let it be so for the sake of 
argument. But it is also to be construed as if the prohibitory clause 
of the constitution were recited in it, and this brings us back again 
to the precise point from which we departed. 

The constitution always accompanies the law, and the latter can 
have no force which the former does not allow to it. If the reasoning 
were thrown into the form of special pleading, it would stand thus: 
the plaintifi' declares on his debt; the defendant pleads his discliarge- 



190 

under the law; the plaintiff alleges the law unconstitutional; but the 
delendant says, you knew of its existence; to which the answer is 
obvious and irresistible, I knew its existence on the statute book of 
New York, but I knew, at the same time, it was null and void under 
the constitution of the United States. 

The language of another leading decision is, " a law in force at 
the time of making the contract does not violate that contract;" but^ 
the very question is, whether there be any such law '■'■ in force f for 
if the States have no authority to pass such laws, then no such law 
can be in force. The constitution is a part of the contract as much 
as the law, and was as much in the contemplation of the parties. 
So that the proposition, if it be admitted, that the law is part of the 
contract, leaves us just where it found us, that is to say, under the 
necessity of comparing the law with the constitution, and of decid- 
ing by such comparison whether it be valid or invalid. If the law 
be unconstitutional, it is void, ai^d no party can be supposed to have 
had reference to a void law. If it be constitutional, no reference to 
it need be supposed. 

2. But the proposition itself cannot be maintained. The law is 
no part of the contract. What part is it? the promise.-* the consid- 
eration? the condition? Clearly, it is neither of these. It is no 
term of the contract. It acts upon the contract only when it is 
broken, or to discharge the party from its obligation alter it is bro- 
ken. The municipal law is the force of society employed to compel 
the performance of contracts. In every judgment in a suit on con- 
tract, the damages are given, and the imprisonment of the person 
or sale of goods awarded, not in performance of the contract, or as 
part of the contract, but as an indemnity for the breach of the con- 
tract. Even interest, which is a strong case, where it is not ex- 
pressed in the contract itseJf, can only be given as damages. It is 
nearly absurd to say that a man's goods are sold on a. fieri facias, or 
that he himself goes to gaol, in pursuance of his contract. These 
are the penalties which the law indicts for the breach of his contract. 
Doubtless, parties, when they enter into contracts, may well consid- 
er both what their rights and what their liabilities will be by the law, 
if such contracts be broken; but this contemplation of consequences 
which can ensue only when the contract is broken, is no part of the 
contract itself The law has nothins to do with the contract till it 
be broken; how then can it be said to form a part of the contract 
itself? 

But there are other cogent and more specific reasons against con- 
sidering the law as part of the contract. (1.) If the law be part of 
the contract, it cannot be repealed or altered; because, in such case, 
the repealing or modifying law itself woutf impair the obligation of 
the contract. The insolvent law of New York, for example, au- 
thorises the discharge of a debtor on the consent of two thirds of his 
creditors. A subsequent act requires the consent of three fourths; 
but if the existing law be part of the contract, this latter law would 
be void. In short, whatever is part of the contract cannot be varied 
but by consent of the parties; tlicrefore the argument runs in absur- 
diiui; for it j)roves that no laws for enforcing the contract or givmg 
remedies upon it, or any way aliecting it, can be changed or modi- 



191 

fied between its creation and its end. If the law in question binds 
one party on the ground of assent to it, it binds both, and binds 
them until they agree to terminate its operation. (2.) If the party 
be bound by an implied assent to the law, as thereby making the law 
a part of the contract, how would it be if the parties had expressly 
dissented, and agreed that the law should make no part of the con- 
tract? Suppose the promise to have been, that the promiser would 
pay at all events, and not take advantage of the statute; still, would 
not the statute operate on the whole, on this particular agreement 
and all? and does not this show that the law is no part of the con- 
tract, but something above it? (3.) If the law of the place be part 
of the contract, one of its terms and conditions, how could it be en- 
forced, as we all know it might be, in another jurisdiction, which 
should have no regard to the law of the place? Suppose the par- 
ties, after the contract, to remove to another State, do they carry 
the law with them as part of their contract? We all know they do 
not. Or take a common case; some States have laws abolishing 
imprisonment for debt; these laws, according to the. argument, are 
all parts of the contract; how then can the party, when sued in 
another State, be imprisoned contrary to the terms of his contract? 
(4.) The argument proves too much, inasmuch as it applies as 
strongly to prior as to subsequent contracts. It is founded on a 
supposed assent to the exercise of legislative authority, without 
considering whether that exercise be legal or illegal. But it is 
equally fair to found the argument on an implied assent to the po- 
tential exercise of that authority. The impHed reference to the 
control of legislative power, is as reasonable and as strong when 
that power is dormant, as while it is in exercise. In one case, the 
argument is, "the law existed, you knew it, and acquiesced." In 
the otlier, it is, " the power to pass the law existed, you knew it, and 
took your chance." There is as clear an assent in the one instance 
as in the other. Indeed, it is more reasonable and more sensible, 
to imply a general assent to all the laws of society, present and to 
come, from the fact of living in it, than it is to imply a particular 
assent to a particular existing enactment. The true view of the mat- 
ter is, that every man is presumed to submit to all power which may 
be lawfully exercised over him, or his right, and no one should be 
presumed to submit to illegal acts of power, whether actual or con- 
tingent. (5.) But a main objection to this argument is, that it would 
render the whole constitutional provision idle and inoperative; and 
no explanatory words, if such words had been added in the consti- 
tution, could have prevented this consequence. The law, it is said, 
is part of the contract; it cannot, therefore, impair the contract, be- 
cause a contract cannot impair itself Now, if this argument be 
sound, the case would have been the same, whatever words the 
constitution had used. If, for example, it had declared that no State 
should pass any law impairing contracts prospectively or retrospeclive- 
hj; or law impairing contracts, whether existing or luture; or wliat- 
ever terms it had used to prohil)it precisely such a law as is now 
before the Court, the pi-ohibition would be totally nugatory if tlie 
law is to be taken as part of the contract; and the result would be, 
that, whatever may be the laws which the States by this clause of 



192 

the constitution arc prohibited from passing, yet, if they in fact do pass 
such laws, those laws are valid, and bind parties by a supposed assent. 

But further, this idea, if well founded, would enable the States 
to deleat the whole constitutional provision by a general enactment. 
Suppose a State should declare, by law, that all contracts entered 
into therein, should be subject to such laws as the legislature, at 
any time, or from time to time, might see fit to pass. This law, ac- 
cording to the argument, would enter into the contract, become a 
part of it, and authorise the interference of the legislative power 
with it, for any and all purposes, wholly uncontrolled by the consti- 
tution of the United States. 

So much for the argument that the law is a part of the contract. 
We think it is shown to be not so; and, if it were, the expected con- 
sequence would not follow. 

The inquiry, then, recurs, whether the law in question be such a 
law as the legislature of New York had authority to pass. The 
question is general. We differ from our learned adversaries on 
general principles. We differ as to the main scope and end of this 
constitutional provision. They think it entirely remedial: we regard 
it as preventive. They think it adopted to secure redress for viola- 
ted private rights: to us it seems intended to guard against great 
public mischiefs. They argue it, as if it were designed as an in- 
demnity or protection for injured private rights, in individual cases 
oi' nieuin and hi um: we look upon it as a great political provision, 
favorable to the commerce and credit of the whole country. Cer- 
tainly we do not deny its application to cases of violated private 
right. Such cases are clearly and unquestionably within its opera- 
tion. Still, we think its main scope to be general and political. 
And this, we think, is proved by reference to the history of the 
country, and to the great objects which were sought to be obtained 
by the establishment of the present governrgent. Commerce, credit, 
and confidence, were the principal things which did not exist under 
the old confederation, and which it was a main object of the present 
constitution to create and establish. A vicious system of legislation, 
a system of paper money and tender laws, had completely paralysed 
industry, threatened to beggar every man of property, and ultimately 
to ruin the country. The relation between debtor and creditor, always 
delicate, and always dangerous whenever it divides society, and draws 
out the respective parties into different ranks and classes, was in such 
a condition in the years 1787, '88, and '89, as to threaten the over- 
throw of all government; and a revolution was menaced, much more 
crhical and alarming than that through which the country had recently 
passed. The object of the new constitution was to arrest these evils; 
to awaken industry by giving security to property; to establish confi- 
dence, credit, and commerce, by salutary laws, to be enforced by the 
power of the whole community. 'I'he revolutionary war was over, the 
country luid peace, but little domestic tranquillity; liberty, but tew of 
its enjoyments, and none of its security. The States had struggled to- 
getlier, but their union was imperfect. They had freedom, but not an 
established course of justice. The constitution was therefore framed, 
as it professes, "to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to 
secure the blessings of liberty, and to insure domestic tranquillity." 



193 

It is not pertinent to this occasion, to advert to all the means by 
which these d( suable ends were to be obtained. Some of them, 
closely connected with the subject now under consideration, are 
obvious and prominent. The objects were, commerce, credit, and 
mutual confidence in matters of property; and these required, among 
other things, a uniform standard of value, or medium of payments. 
One of the first powers given to Congress, therefore, is that of coin- 
ing money, and fixing the value of foreign coins; and one of the 
first restraints imposed on the States, is the total prohibition to coin 
money. These two provisions are industriously followed up and com- 
pleted, by denying to the States all power emitting of bills of credit, 
or of making anything but gold and silver a tender in the payment 
of debts. The whole control, therefore, over the standard of value, 
and medium of payments, is vested in the general government. 
And here the question instantly suggests itself, why should such 
pains be taken to confide in Congress alone this exclusive power of 
fixing on a standard value, and of prescribing the medium in which 
debts shall be paid, if it is, afier all, to be left to every State to de- 
clare that debts may be discharged, and to prescribe how they may 
be discharged, without any payment at all? Why say that no man 
shall be obliged to take in discharge of a debt paper money issued 
by the authority of a State, and yet say, that by the same authority 
the debt may be discharged without any payment whatever? 

We contend, that the constitution has not left its work thus unfin- 
ished. We contend, that, taking its provisions together, it is appa- 
rent it was intended to provide for two things, intimately connected 
with each other. 

1. A uniform medium for the payment of debts. 

2. A uniform manner of discharging debts when they are to be 
discharged without payment. 

The arrangement of the grants and prohibition contained in the 
constitution, are fit to be regarded on this occasion. The grant to 
Congress, and the prohibition on the States, though they are cer- 
tainly to be construed together, are not contained in the same 
clauses. The powers granted to Congress are enumerated one after 
another in the eighth section; the principal limitations on those 
powers, in the ninth section; and the prohibitions to the States, in 
the tenth section. Now, in order to understand whether any par- 
ticular power be exclusively vested in Congress, it is necessary to 
read the terms of the grant, together with the terms of the pro- 
hibition. Take an example from that power of which we have been 
speaking, the coinage power. Here the grant to Congress is, " To 
coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coins." Now, 
the correlative prohibition on the States, though found in another 
section, is, undoubtedly, to be taken- in immediate connexion with 
the foregoing, as much so as if it had been found in the same clause 
The only just reading of these provisions, therefore, is this: '^ Con 
gress shall have power to coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of 
foreign coin; but no State shall coin money, emit bills of credit, or make 
anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts.'''' 

These provisions respect the medium of payment, or standard ol 
value, and, thus collated, their joint result is clear and decisive 
25 R 



194 

We think the result clear also, of those provisions which respect 
the discharge of debts without payment. Collated in like manner, 
they stand thus: " Congress shall have power to establish uniform kniis 
on the subject of bankriipicics throughout the United Stales; but no State 
shall pass amj law impairing the obligation of contracts.'''' This colloca- 
tion cannot be objected to if they refer "to the same subject matter; 
and that they do refer to the same subject matter, we have the au- 
thority of this Court for saying, because this Court solemnly deter- 
mined, in Sfurges vs. Crowninsh'ield, that this prohibition on the States 
did apply to systems of bankruptcy. It must be now taken, therefore, 
(hat State bankrupt laws were in the mind of the Convention when 
the prohibition was adopted, and, therefore, the grant to Congress on 
the subject of bankrupt laws, and the prohibition to the State on the 
same subject, are properly to be taken and read together; and being 
thus read together, is not the intention clear to take away from the 
States the power of passing bankrupt laws, since, while enacted by 
them, such laws would not be uniform, and to confer the power exclu- 
sively on Congress, by whom uniform laws could be established ? 

Suppose the order of arrangement in the constitution had been 
otherwise than it is, and that the prohibitions to the States had pre- 
ceded the grants of power to Congress, the two powers, when col- 
lated, would then have read thus: " JVb State shall pass any law im- 
paiiing the obligation of contracts; but Congress maij establish uniform 
laws on the subject of bankruptcies.''^ Could any man have doubted, 
in that case, that the meaning was, that the States should not pass 
laws discharging debts without payment, but that Congress might 
establish uniform bankrupt acts? and yet this inversion of the order 
of the clauses does not alter their sense. We contend, that Con- 
gress alone possesses the power of establishing bankrupt laws; and 
although we are aware, that in Stnrges vs. Crowninshield, the Court 
decided, that such an exclusive power could not be inferred from 
the words of the grant in the seventh section, we yet would respect- 
fully request the bench to reconsider this point. We think it could 
not'have been intended that both the States and general government 
should exercise this power; and, therefore, that a grant to one im- 
plies the prohilntion on the other. But not to press a topic which 
the Court has already had under its consideration, we contend, that 
even without reading the clauses of the constitution in the connex- 
ion which we have suggested, and which is believed to be the true 
one, the prohibition in the tenth section, taken by itself, does forbid 
the enactment of State bankrupt laws, as applied to future, as well 
as present debts. W^e argue this from the words of the prohibition; 
from the association thev are found in, and from the objects intended. 
1. The words are general. The States can pass no law impair- 
ing contracts; that is, any contract. In the nature of things a law 
may impair a future contract, and, therefore, such contract is within 
► the' protection of the constitution. The words being general, it is 
for the other side to show a limitation; and this, it is submitted, they 
have whollv failed to do, unless they shall have established the 
doctrine tiiat the law itself is part of the coi^tract. It may be added, 
tiiat the particular expression of the constitution is worth regarding. 
The thing prohibited is called a km, not an act; a law, in its general 



195 

acceptation, is a rule prescribed for future conduct, not a legislative 
interference with existing rights. The framers of the constitution 
would hardly have given the appellation of Imv to violent invasions 
of individual right, or individual property, by acts of legislative 
power. Although, doubtless, such acts fall within this prohibition, 
yet they are prohibited also by general principles, and by the con- 
stitutions of the States, and, therefore, further provision against 
such acts was not so necessary as against other mischiefs. 

2. The most conclusive argument, perhaps, arises from the con 
nexion in which the clause stands. The words of the prohibition, 
so far as it applies to civil rights, or rights of property, are, " that 
no State shall coin money, emit bills of credit, make anything but 
gold and silver coin a tender in the payment of debts, or pass any 
law impairing the obligation of contracts." The prohibition of at- 
tainders, and ex post Judo laws, refer entirely to criminal proceed- 
ings, and, therefore, should be considered as standing by themselves; 
but the other parts of the prohibition are connected by the subject 
matter, and ought, therefore, to be construed together. Taking the 
words thus together, according to their natural connexion, how is 
it possible to give a more limited construction to the term " con- 
tracts," in the last branch of the sentence, than to the word " debts," 
in that immediately preceding? Can a State make anything but 
gold and silver a tender in payment of future debts? This nobody 
pretends. But what ground is there for a distinction? No State 
shall make anything but gold and silver a tender in the payment of 
debts, nor pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. 
Now, by what reasoning is it made out that the debts here spoken 
of, are any debts, either existing or future; but that the contracts 
spoken of are subsisting contracts only ? Such a distinction seems 
to us wholly arbitrary. We see no ground for it. Suppose the 
article, where it uses the word debts^ had used the word contrads 
The sense would have been the same then, as it now is; but the 
identity of terms would have made the nature of the distinction now 
contended for somewhat more obvious. Thus altered, the clause 
would read, that no State should make anything but gold and silver 
a tender in discharge of contrads, nor pass any law impairing the 
obligation of contrads; yet the first of these expressions would have 
been held to apply to all contracts, and the last to subsisting con- 
tracts only. This shows the consequence of what is now contended 
for in a strong light. It is certain that the substitution of the word 
contrads, for debts, would not alter the sense; and an argument that 
could not be sustained if such substitution were made, cannot be 
sustained now. We maintain, therefore, that if tender laws may 
not be made for future debts, neither can bankrupt laws be made 
for future contracts. All the arguments used here may be applied 
with equal force to tender laws for future debts. It may be said, 
for instance, that when it speaks of debts, the constitution means 
existing debts, and not mere possibilities of future debt; that the 
object was to preserve vested rights; and that if a man, after a ten- 
der law had passed, had contracted a debt, the manner in which that 
tender law authorised that debt to be discharged, became part of 
the contract, and that the whole debt, or whole obligation was thus 



196 

qualified by the pre-existing law, and was no more than a contract 
to deliver so much paper niijney, or of whatever other article which 
might be made a tender, as the original bargain expressed. Argu- 
ments of this sort will not be found wanting in favor of tender laws, 
if the Court yield to similar arguments in favor of bankrupt laws. 

These several prohibitions of the constitution stand in the same 
paragraph; they have the same purpose, and were introduced for 
the same object; they are expressed in words of similar import, in 
grannnar, and in sense; they are subject to the same construction, 
and, we think, no reason has yet been given for imposing an impor- 
tant restriction on one part of them, which does not equally show, 
that the same restriction might be imposed also on the other part. 

We have already endeavoured to maintain, that one great politi- 
cal o!)ject, intended by the constitution, would be defeated, if this 
construction were allowed to prevail. As an object of political 
regulation, it was not important to prevent the States from passing 
bankrupt laws applicable to present debts, while the power was lell 
to them in regard to future debts; nor Avas it at all important, in a 
political point of vieAV, to prohibit tender laws as to future debts, 
while it was yet left to the States to pass laws for the discharge of 
such debts, which, after all, are little different, in principle, from 
tender laws. Look at the law before the Court in this view. It 
provides that if the debtor will surrender, offer, or tender to trustees, 
for the benefit of his creditors, all his estate and effects, he shall be 
discharged from all his debts. If it had authorised a tender of any- 
thing but money to any one creditor, though it were of a value equal 
to the debt, and thereupon provided for a discharge, it would have 
been clearly invalid. Yet it is maintained to be good, merely be- 
cause it is made for all creditors, and seeks a discharge from all 
debts; although the thing tendered may not be equivalent to a shil- 
ling in the pound of those debts. This shows, again, very clearly 
how the constitution has failed of its purpose, if, having in terms 
prohibited all tender laws, and taken so much pains to establish a 
uniform medium of payment, it has yet left the States the power of 
discliarging debts, as they may see fit, without any payment fit all. 

To recapitulate what has been said, we maintain; first, that the con- 
stitution, by its grants to Congress, and its prohibitions on the States, 
has sought to estal)lish one uniform standard of value, or medium of 
payment. Second, that, by like means, it has endeavoured to provide 
for one uniform mode of discharging debts, when they are to be dis- 
charged without payment. Third, That these objects are connected, 
and that the first loses much of its importance, if the last, also, be not 
accomplished. Fourth, that reading the grant to Congress and the 
prohil)itif)n on the States together, the inference is strong that the 
constitution intended to confer an exclusive power to pass bankrupt 
laws on Congress. Fifth, that the prohil)ition, in the tenth section, 
reaches to all contracts existing or future;, in the same way as the 
other prohibitifm in the same section extends to all debts existing or 
future. Sixthly, and that, upon any other construction, one great 
political object of the constitution will fail of its accomplishment. 



REMARKS 



IN THE CONVENTION OF DELEGATES CHOSEN TO REVISE THE CON- 
STITUTION OF MASSACHUSETTS, UPON THE RESOLUTION RELA- 
TIVE TO OATHS OF OFFICE. 1821. - 



It is obvious that the principal alteration, proposed by the first re- 
solution, is the omission of the declaration of belief in the Christian 
religion, as a qualification for office, in the cases of the governor, 
lieutenant governor, counsellors, and members of the legislature. 
I shall content myself on this occasion with stating, shortly and 
generally, the sentiments of the select committee, as I understand 
them, on the subject of this resolution. Two questions naturally 
present themselves. In the first place; have the people a right, if 
in their judgment the security of their government and its due ad- 
ministration demand it, to require a declaration of belief in the Chris- 
tian religion, as a qualification or condition of office"^ On this 
question, a majority of the committee held a decided opinion. They 
thought the people had such a right. By the fundamental principle 
of popular and elective governments, all office is in the free gift of 
the people. They may grant, or they may withhold it at pleasure; — 
and if it be for them, and them only, to decide whether they will 
grant office, it is for them to decide, also, on what terms, and with 
what conditions, they will grant it. Nothing is more unfounded than 
the notion that any man has a right to an office. This must depend 
on the choice of others, and consequently upon the opinions of 
others, in relation to his fitness and qualification for office. No man 
can be said to have a right to that, which others may withhold from 
him at pleasure. There are certain rights, no doubt, which the 
whole people, or the government as representing the whole people, 
owe to each individual, in return for that obedience and personal 
service, and proportionate contributions to the public burdens, which 
each individual owes to the government. These rights are stated 
with sufficient accuracy, in the tenth article of the Bill of Rights, in 
this constitution. *' Each individual in society has a right to be 
protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, 
■according to the standing laws." Here is no right of office enume- 
rated; no right of governing others, or of bearing rule in the state. 
All bestowment of office remaining in the discretion of the people, 
they have of course a right to regulate it, by any rules which they 
may deem expedient. Hence the people, by their constitution, pre- 



198 

scribe certain qualifications for office, respecting age, property, 
residence, &c. But if office, merely as such, were a right, which 
each individual under the social compact was entitled to claim, all 
these qualifications would be indefensible. The acknowledged rights 
are not subject, and ought not to be subject, to any such limitation. 
The right of being protected, in life, liberty, and estate, is due to all, 
and cannot be justly denied to any, whatever be their age, property, 
or residence in the state. These qualifications, then, can only be 
made requisite as qualifications for office, on the ground that office 
is not what any man can demand, as matter of right, but rests in the 
confidence and good will of those who are to bestow it. In short, it 
seems to me too plain to be questioned, that the right of office is a 
matter of discretion, and option, and can never be claimed by any 
man, on the ground of obligation. It would seem to follow, then, 
that thosd who confer office may annex any such conditions to it as 
they think proper. If they prefer one man to another, they may act 
on that preference. If they regard certain personal qualifications, 
they may act accordingly, and ground of complaint is given to nobody. 
Between two candidates, otherwise equally qualified, the people at 
an election, may decide in favor of one because he is a Christian, and 
against the other because he is not. They may repeat this prefer- 
ence at the next election, on the same ground, and may continue it 
from year to year. Now, if the people may, without injustice, act 
upon this preference, and from a sole regard to this qualification, and 
refuse in any instance to depart from it, they have an equally clear 
right to prescribe this qualification, beforehand, as a rule for their 
future government. If they may do it, they may agree to do it. If 
they deem it necessary, they may so say, beforehand. If the public 
will may require this qualification, at every election as it occurs, 
the public will may declare itself beforehand; and make such quali- 
fication a standing requisite. That cannot be an unjust rule, the 
compliance with which, in every case, would be right. This qualifi- 
cation has nothing to do with any man's conscience. If he dislike the 
condition, he may decline the office; in like manner as if he dislike 
the salary, the rank, or anything else which the law attaches to it. 
However clear the right may be, (and I can hardly suppose any gen- 
tleman will dispute it,) the ejcpediencij of retaining the declaration is a 
more difficult question. It is said not to be necessary, because, in 
this commonwealth, ninety-nine out of every hundred of the inhabi- 
tants profess to believe in the Christian religion. It is sufficiently 
certain, therefore, that persons of this description, and none others, 
will ordinarily be chosen to places of public trust. There is as much 
security, it is said, on this subject, as the necessity of the case re- 
quires. And as there is a sort of opprobium — a marking out, for 
observation and censorious remark, a single individual, or a very few 
individuals, who may not be able to make the declaration, — it is an act, 
if not of injustice, yet of unkindness, and of unnecessary rigor, to 
call on such individuals to make the declaration. There is also 
another class of objections, which have been stated. It has been said, 
that there are many very devout and serious persons — persons who 
esteem the Christian religion to be above all price — to whom, never- 
theless, the terms of this declaration seem somewhat too strong and 



199 

intense. They seem, to these persons, to require the declaration of 
that /«(■//(. which is deemed essential to personal salvation; and there- 
fore not at all fit to be adopted, by those who profess a belief in 
Christianity merely, in a more popular and general sense. It 
certainly appears to me, that this is a mistaken interpretation of the 
terms; that they imply only a general assent to the truth of the 
Christian revelation, and, at most, to the supernatural occurrences 
which establish its authenticity. There may, however, and there 
appears to be, conscience in this objection; and all conscience ought 
to be respected. I was not aware, before I attended the discussions 
in the committee, of the extent to which this objection prevailed. 
There is one other consideration to which I will allude, although it 
was not urged in committee. It is this. This qualificaton is made 
applicable only to the executive and the members of the legislature. — 
It woidd not be easy, perhaps, to say why it should not be extended 
to the judiciary, if it were thought necessary for any office. There 
can be no office, in which the sense of religious responsibility is 
more necessary, than in that of a judge; especially of those judges 
who pass, in the last resort, on the lives, liberty and property of 
every man. There may be among legislators, strong passions and 
bad passions. There may be party heats and personal bitterness. 
. But legislation is in its nature general : laws usually affect the 
whole society; and if mischievous or unjust, the Avhole society is 
alarmed, and seeks their repeal. The judiciary power, on the other 
hand, acts directly on individuals. The injured may suffer, without 
sympathy or the hope of redress. The last hope of the innocent, 
under accusation, and in distress, is in the integrity of his judges. 
If this fail, all fails; and there is no remedy, on this side the bar of 
Heaven. — Of all places, therefore, there is none which so impera- 
tively demands, that he who occupies it should be under the fear of 
God, and above all other fear, as the situation of a judge. — For these 
reasons, perhaps, it might be thought, that the constitution has not 
gone far enough, if the provisions already in it were deemed neces- 
sary to the public security. I believe I have stated the substance 
of the reasons which appeared to have weight with the committee. 
For my own part, finding this declaration in the constitution, and 
hearing of no practical evil resulting from it, I should have been 
willing to retain it, unless considerable objection had been express- 
ed to it. If others were satisfied with it, I should be. I do not con- 
sider it, however, essential to retain.it, as there is another part of the 
constitution which recognises, in the- fullest manner, the benefits 
which civil society derives from those Christian institutions which 
cherish piety, morality and religion. I am conscious, that we should 
not strike out of the constitution all recognition of the Christian re- 
ligion. I am desirous, in so solemn a transaction as the establish- 
ment of a constitution, that we should keep in it an expression of 
our respect and attachment to Christianity; — not, indeed, to any of 
its peculiar forms, but to its general principles. 



REMARKS 



IN THE CONVENTION, UPON THE RESOLUTION TO DIVIDE THE 
COMMONWEALTH INTO DISTRICTS FOR THE CHOICE OF SENA- 
TORS ACCORDING TO POPULATION, 



I KNOW not, sir, whether it be probable that any opinions or votes 
of mine are ever likely to be of more permanent importance, than 
those which I may give in the discharge of my duties in this body. 
And of the questions which may arise here, I anticipate no one of 
greater consequence than the present. I ask leave, therefore, to 
submit a few remarks to the consideration of the committee. 

The subject before us, is the manner of constituting the legisla- 
tive department of government. We have already decided, that the 
legislative power shall exist as it has heretofore existed, in two 
separate and distinct branches, a Senate and a House of Represen- 
tatives. We propose also, at least I have heard no intimation of 
a contrary opinion, that these branches shall, in form, possess a neg- 
ative on each other. And I presume I may take it for granted, that 
the members of both these houses are to be chosen annually. The 
immediate question now under discussion, is, In u'hut manner shall 
the senators be elected ? They are to be chosen in districts ; but 
shall they be chosen, in proportion to the number of inhabitanfs in 
each district, or in proportion to the taxable prnperfy of each district, 
or, in other words, in proportion to the part which each district bears in 
the public burdens of the state. The latter is the existing provision 
of the constitution; and to this I give my support. The proposition 
of the honorabl'3 member from Roxbury, (IMr. Dearborn,) proposes 
to divide the state into certain legislative districts, and to choose a 
given number of senators, and a 'given number of representatives, 
in each district, iti proportion to population. This I understand. It 
is a simple and plain system. The honorable member from Pitts- 
field, and the honorable member from Worcester support the first 
part of this proposition — that is to say, that part which provides for 
the choice of senators, according to population — without explaining 
entirely their views, as to the latter part, relative to the choice of 
representatives. They insist that the questions are distinct, and ca- 
pable of a separate consideration and decision. I confess myself, 
sir, unable to view the subject in that light. It seems to me, there 
is an essential propriety in considering the questions together; and 
in forming our ojiinions on the constitution of one, with reference 



201 

to that of the other. The Legislature is one great machine of gov- 
ernment, not two machines; the two Houses are its parts, and its utili- 
ty will, as it seems to me, depend not merely on the materials of these 
parts, or their separate construction, but on their accommodation, also, 
and adaption to each other. Their balanced and regulated movement, 
when united, is that which is expected to insure safety to the state; 
and who can give any opinion on this, without first seeing the con- 
struction of both, and considering how they are formed and arranged 
with respect to their mutual relation. — I cannot imagine, therefore, 
how the member from Worcester should think it uncandid to inquire 
of him, since he supports this mode of choosing senators, tvhat mode 
he proposes for the choice of representatives. 

It has been said that the constitution, as it now stands, gives more 
than an equal and proper number of senators to the county of Suf- 
folk. I hope I may be thought to contend for the general principle, 
without being influenced by any regard to its local application. I 
do not inquire whether the senators, whom this principle brings into 
the government, will come from the county of Suffolk, or from the 
Housatonic river, or the extremity of Cape Cod. I wish to look 
only to the principle; and as I believe that to be sound and salutary, 
I give my vote in favor of maintaining it. 

In my opinion, sir, there are two questions before the committee. 
The first is, shall the legislative department be constructed with 
any other check than such as arises simply from dividing the mem- 
bers of this department into two houses ? The second is, if such 
other and further check ought to exist, in what manner shall it be 
created ? 

If the two houses are to be chosen in the manner proposed by 
the resolutions of the member from Roxbury, there is obviously no 
other check or control than a division into separate chambers. The 
members of both houses are to be chosen at the same time, by the 
same electors, in the same districts, and for the same term of office. 
They will of course all be actuated by the same feelings and inter- 
ests. Whatever motives may at the moment exist to elect particu- 
lar members of one house, will operate, equally, on the choice of 
members of the other. There is so little of real utility in this mode, 
that, if nothing more be done, it would be more expedient to choose 
all the members of the legislature, without distinction, simply as 
members of the legislature, and to make the division into two houses, 
either by lot, or otherwise, after these members thus chosen should 
have come up to the capital. 

I understand the reason of checks and balances, in the legislative 
power, to arise from the truth, that, in representative governments 
that department is the leading and predominating power; and if its 
will may be at any time suddenly and hastily expressed, there is 
great danger that it may overthrow all other powers. — Legislative 
bodies naturally feel strong, because they are numerous, and be- 
cause they consider themselves as the immediate representatives of 
the people. They depend on public opinion to sustain their meas- 
ures, and they undoubtedly possess great means of influencing pub- 
lic opinion. With all the guards which can be raised by constitu- 
tional provisions, we are not likely to be too well secured against 

26 



202 

cases of improper, or hasty, or intemperate legislation. It may be 
observed, also, that the executive power, so unifonnly the object 
of jealousy to republics, has become, in the states of this union, 
deprived of the greatest part both of its importance and its splen- 
dor, by the establishment of the general government. While the 
states possessed the power of making war and peace, and maintained 
military forces, by their own authority, the power of the state exec- 
utives was very considerable, and respectable. It might then even 
be an object, in some cases, of a just and warrantable jealousy. But 
a great change has been wrought. The care of foreign relations, 
the maintenance of armies and navies, and their command and con- 
trol, have devolved on another government. Even the power of 
appointment, so exclusively, one would think, an executive power, 
is, in very many of the states, held or controlled by the legislature; 
that department either making the principal appointments, itself, or 
else surrounding the chief executive magistrate with a council, of 
its own election, possessing a negative upon his nominations. 

Nor has it been found easy, nor in all cases possible, to preserve 
the judicial department from the progress of legislative encroach- 
ment. Indeed, in some of the states, all judges are appointed by the 
legislature; in others, aUhough appointed by the executive, they are 
removable at the pleasure of the legislature. In all, the provision 
for their maintenance is necessarily to be made by the legislature. 
As if Montesquieu had never demonstrated the necessity of sepa- 
rating the departments of governments ; as if Mr. Adams had not 
done the same thing, with equal ability, and more clearness, in his 
defence of the American constitution; as if the sentiments of Mr. 
Hamilton and Mr. Madison, were already forgotten: we see, all 
around us, a tendency to extend the legislative power over the prop- 
er sphere of the other departments. And as the legislature, from 
the very nature of things, is the most powerful department, it be- 
comes necessary to provide, in the mode of forming it, some check, 
which shall insure deliberation, and caution, in its measures. If 
all legislative power rested in one house, it is very problematical, 
whether any proper independence could be given, either to the ex- 
ecutive or the judiciary. Experience does not speak encouragingly, 
on that point. If we look through the several constitutions of the 
states, we shall perceive that generally the departments are most 
distinct, and independent, where the legislature is composed of two 
houses, with equal authority, and mutual checks. If all legislative 
power be in one popular body, all other power, sooner or later, will 
be there also. 

I wish, now, sir, to correct a most important mistake in the manner 
in which this question has been stated. It has been said, that we 
propose to give to property, merely as such, a control over the peo- 
ple, numerically considered. But this I take not to be at all the true 
nature of the proposition. The Senate is not to be a check on the 
people, but on the House of Rejrresenlaiii'es. It is the case of an au- 
thority, given to one agent, to check or control the acts of another. 
The people, having conferred on the House of Representatives 
powers which are great, and, from their luiture, liable to abuse, re- 
quire, for their own security, another house, which shall possess an 



203 

effectual negative on the first. This does not limit the power of the 
people; but only the authority of their agents. It is not a restraint 
on their rights, but a restraint on that power which they have delega- 
ted. It limits the authority of agents, in making laws to bind their 
principals. And if it be wise to give one agent the power of check- 
ing or controlling another, it is equally wise, most manifestly, that 
there should be some difference of character, sentiment, feeling, or 
origin, in that agent who is to possess this control. Otherwise, it 
is not at all probable that the control will ever be exercised. To re- 
quire the consent of two agents to the validity of an act, and yet to 
appoint agents so similar, in all respects, as to create a moral certainty 
that what one does the other will do also, would be inconsistent, and 
nugatory. — There can be no effectual control, without some difference 
of origin, or character, or interest, or feeling, or sentiment. And the 
great question in this country has been, where to find, or how to 
create this difference, in governments entirely elective and popular? 
Various modes have been attempted, in various states. In some, a 
difference of qualification has been required, in the persons to be 
elected. -^^This obviously produces little or no effect. All property 
qualification, even the highest, is so low as to produce no exclusion, 
to any extent, in any of the states. A difference of age, in the 
persons elected, is sometimes required; but this is found to be equally 
unimportant. It has not happened, neither, that any consideration 
of the relative rank of the members of the two houses, has had much 
effect on the character of their constituent members. Both in the 
state governments, and in the United States government, we daily 
see persons elected into the flouse of Representatives who have been 
members of the Senate. Public opinion does not attach so much 
weight and importance to the distinction, as to lead individuals great- 
ly to regard it. In some of the states, a different sort of qualifica- 
tion in the electors, is required, for the two houses; and this is 
probably the most proper and efficient check. But such has not been 
the provision in this commonwealth, and there are strong objections 
to introducing it. In other cases, again, there is a double election 
for senators; electors being first chosen, who elect senators. Such is 
the constitution of Maryland, in which the senators are elected for 
five years, by electors appointed in equal numbers by the counties; 
a mode of election not unlike that of choosing representatives in 
Parliament for the boroughs of Scotland. In this state, the quali- 
fication of the voters is the same, and there is no essential difference 
in that of the persons chosen. — But, in apportioning the senate to 
the different districts of the state, the present constitution assigns to 
each district a number proportioned to its public taxes. Whether 
this be the best mode of producing a difference in the construction 
of the two houses, is not now the question; but the question is, 
whether this be better than no mode. 

The gentleman from Roxbury called for authority on this subject 
He asked, what writer of reputation had approved the principle for 
which we contend. I should hope, sir, that even if this call could 
not be answered, it would not necessarily follow, that the principle 
should be expunged. Governments are instituted for practical ben- 



204 

efit, not for subjects of speculative reasoning, merely. The best 
authority, for the support of a particular principle or provision in 
government, is experience; and, of all experience, our own, if it have 
been long enough to give the principle a fair trial, should be most 
decisive. This provision has existed for forty years, and while so 
many gentlemen contend that it is wrong in theory, no one has shown 
that it has been either injurious or inconvenient in practice. No one 
pretends, that it has caused a bad law to be enacted, or a good one 
to be rejected. To call on us, then, to strike out this provision, 
because we should be able to find no autliority for it in any book on 
government, would seem to be like requiring a mechanic to abandon 
the use of an implement, which had always answered all the purpo- 
ses designed by it, because he could find no model of it in the patent 
oflice. 

But, sir, I take the principle to be well established, by writers of 
the greatest authority. In the first place, those who have treated 
of natural law, have maintained, as a principle of that law, that as far 
as the object of society is the protection of something in which the 
members possess unequal shares, it is just, that the weight of each 
person in the common councils should bear a relation and propor- 
tion to his interest. Such is the sentiment of Grotius, and he refers, 
in support of it, to several institutions among the ancient states. 

Those authors who have written more particularly on the subject 
of political institutions, have, many of them, maintained similar senti- 
ments. — Not, indeed, that every man's power should be in exact 
proportion to his property, but that, in a general sense, and in a gene- 
ral form, property, as such, should have its \yeight and influence in 
political arrangement. Montesquieu speaks with approbation of the 
early Roman regulation, made by Servius Tullius, by which the peo- 
ple were distributed into classes, according to their property, and the 
public burdens apportioned to each individual according to the 
degree of power which he possessed in the government. By which 
regulation, he observes, some bore with the greatness of their tax 
because of their proportionable participation in power and credit; 
others consoled themselves for the smallness of their power and 
credit, by the smallness of their tax. One of the most ingenious of 
political writers, is Mr. Harrington; an author not now read so nmch 
as he deserves. It is his leading object, in his Oceana, to prove, 
that power nafuralhj and neccssarilij follows property. — He maintains 
that a government, founded on property, is legitimately Ibunded; and 
that a government founded on the disregard of property, is founded 
in injustice, and can only be maintained by military Ibrce. " If one 
man," says he, " be sole landlord, like the grand signior, his empire is 
absolute. If a few possess the land, this makes the Gothic or Feu- 
dal constitution. If the whole people be landlords, then is it a com- 
monwealth." " It is strange," says Mr. Pope, in one of his recorded 
conversations, " that Harrington should be the first man to find out 
so evident and demonstrable a truth as that, of property being the 
true basis and measure of power." In truth, he was not the first. 
The idea is as old as political science itself. It may be found in 
Aristotle, Lord Bacon, Sir Waller Raleigh, and other writers. Har- 



205 

rington seems, however, to be the first writer who has illustrated and 
expanded the principle, and given to it the etiect and prominence 
which justly belong to it. 

To this sentiment, sir, I entirely agree. It seems to me to be 
plain, that in the absence ot" military tbrce, political power naturally 
and necessarily goes into the hands which hold the property. In my 
judgment, therefore, a republican form of government rests, not more 
on political constitutions, than on those laws which regulate the 
descent and transmission of property. — Governments like ours could 
not have been maintained, where property was holden according to 
the principles of the feudal system; nor, on the other hand, could 
the feudal constitution possibly exist with us. Our New England 
ancestors brought hither no great capitals, from Europe; and if they 
had, there was nothing productive in which they could have been 
invested. They left behind them the whole feudal system of the 
other continent. They broke away, at once, from that system of 
military service established in the dark ages, and which continues, 
down even to the present time, more or less to affect the condition 
of property all over Europe. They came to a new country. There 
were, as yet, no lands yielding rent, and no tenants rendering ser- 
vice. The whole soil was unreclaimed from barbarism. They 
were themselves, either from their original condition or from the 
necessity of their common interest, nearly on a general level, in 
respect to property. Their situation demanded a parcelling out and 
division of the lands; and it may be fairly said, that this necessary 
act fixed Ihe future frame and form of their government. The character 
of their political institutions was determined by the fundamental laws 
respecting property. The laws rendered estates divisible, among 
sons, and daughters. The right of primogeniture, at first limited, 
and curtailed, was afterwards abolished. The property was all free- 
hold. The entailment of estates, long trusts, and the other process- 
ses for fettering and tying up inheritances, were not applicable to 
the condition of society, and seldom made use of. On the contrary, 
alienation of the land was every way facilitated, even to the 
subjecting of it to every species of debt. The establishment of 
public registries, and the simplicity of our forms of conveyance, have 
greatly facilitated the change of real estate from one proprietor to 
another. The consequence of all these causes has been, a great 
subdivision of the soil, and a great equality of condition; the true 
basis, most certainly, of a popular government. — "If the people," 
says Harrington, "hold three parts in four of the territory, it is plain 
there can neither be any single person nor nobility able to dispute 
the government with them; in this case, therefore, exce/)^ /orce be 
interposed, they govern themselves. 

The history of other nations may teach us, how favorable to public 
io*^lty is the division of the soil into small freeholds; and a system 
of .aws, of which the tendency is, without violence or injustice, to 
produce and to preserve a degree of equality of property. It has 
been estimated, if I mistake not, that about the time of Henry the 
VII, four fifths of the land, in England, was holden by the great 
barons, and ecclesiastics. The effects of a growing commerce soon 
afterwards began to break in on this state of things, and before the 

s 



206 

revolution, in 1688, a vast change had been wrought. It is probable, 
perhaps, that for the last hall" century, the process of subdivision, in 
England, has been retarded, if not reversed; that the great weight 
of taxation has compelled many of the lesser freeholders to dispose 
of their estates, and to seek employment in the army and navy, in 
the professions of civil life, in commerce, or in the colonies. The 
effect of this on the British constitution cannot but be most unfavor- 
able. A few large estates grow larger; but the number of those 
who have no estates also increases; and there may be danger, lest 
the inequality of property become so great, that those who possess 
it may be dispossessed by force. In other words, that the govern- 
ment may be overturned. 

A most interesting experiment of the effect of a subdivision of 
property, on government, is now making in France. It is understood, 
that the law regulating the transmission of property, in that country, 
now divides it, real and personal, among all the children, equally, 
both sons and daughters; and that there is, also, a very great 
restraint on the power of making dispositions of property by will. 
It has been supposed, that the effect of this might probably be, in 
time, to break up the soil into such small subdivisions, that the pro- 
prietors would be too poor to resist the encroachments of executive 
power. I think far otherwise. What is lost in individual wealth, 
will be more than gained in numbers, in intelligence, and in a sym- 
pathy of sentiment. If, indeed, only one or a few landholders were 
to resist the crown, like the barons of England, they must of course 
be great and powerful landholders, with multitudes of retainers, to 
promise success. But if the proprietors of a given extent of terri- 
tory are summoned to resistance, there is no reason to believe that 
such resistance would be less forcible, or less successful, because 
the number of such proprietors should be great. Each would per- 
ceive his own importance, and his own interest, and would feel that 
natural elevation of character which the consciousness of property 
inspires. A common sentiment would unite all, and numbers would 
not only add strength, but excite enthusiasm. It is true, that France 
possesses a vast military force, under the direction of an hereditary 
executive government; and military power, it is possible, may over- 
throw any government. It is in vain, however, in this period of the 
world, to look for security against military power, to the arm of the 
great landholders. That notion is derived from a state of things 
long since past; a state in which a feudal baron, with his retainers, 
might stand against the sovereign, who was himself but the greatest 
baron, and his retainers. But at present, what could the richest 
landholder do, against one regiment of disciplined troops? Other 
securities, therefore, against the prevalence of military power must 
be provided. Happily for us, we are not so situated as that any 
purpose of national defence requires, ordinarily and constantly, such 
a military force as might seriously endanger our liberties. 

In respect, however, sir, to the recent law of succession in France, 
to which I have alluded, I would, presumptuously perhaps, hazard a 
conjecture, that if the government do not change the law, the law, 
in half a century, will change the government; and that this change 
will be, not in favor of the power of the crown, as some European 



207 

writers have supposed, but against it. Those writers only reason 
upon what they think correct general principles, in relation to this 
subject. They acknowledge a want of experience. Here, we have 
had that experience; and we know, that a multitude of small pro- 
prietors, acting with intelligence, and that enthusiasm which a 
common cause ins{)ires, constitute not only a formidable, but an in- 
vincible power. 

The true principle of a free and popular government would seem 
to be, so to construct it as to give to all, or at least to a very great 
majority, an interest in its preservation. To found it, as other things 
are founded, on men's interest. The stability of government re- 
quires, that those who desire its continuance should be more power- 
ful than those who desire its dissolution. This power, of course, 
is not always to be measured by mere numbers. — Education, wealth, 
talents, are all parts and elements of the general aggregate of pow- 
er; but numbers nevertheless constitute, ordinarily, the most impor- 
tant consideration, unless indeed there be a military force in the hands 
of the tew, by which they can control the many. In this country 
we have actual existing systems of government, in the protection of 
which it would seem a great majority, both in numbers and in other 
means of power and influence, must see their interest. But this 
state of things is not brought about merely by written political con- 
stitutions, or the mere manner of organizing the government; but 
also by the laws which regulate the descent and transmission of 
property. The freest government, if it could exist, would not be long 
acceptable, if the tendency of the laws were to create a rapid accu- 
mulation of property in few hands, and to render the great mass of 
the population dependent and pennyless. In such a case, the pop- 
ular power must break in upon the rights of property, or else the in- 
fluence of property must limit and control the exercise of popular 
power. — Universal sutirage, for example, could not long exist in a 
community, where there was great inequality of property. The 
holders of estates would be obliged, in such case, either in some 
way to restrain the right of suffrage, or else such right of suffrage 
would, ere long, divide the property. In the nature of things, those 
who have not property, and see their neighbours possess much more 
than they think them to need, cannot be favorable to laws made for 
the protection of property. When this class becomes numerous, it 
grows clamorous. It looks on property as its prey and plunder, and 
is naturally ready, at all times, for violence and revolution. 

It would seem then to be the part of political wisdom to found 
government on property; and to establish such distribution of prop- 
erty, by the laws which regulate its transmission and alienation, as 
to interest the great majority of society in the protection of the gov- 
ernment. This is, I imagine, the true theory and the actual prac- 
tice of our republican institutions. With property divided, as we 
have it, no other government than that of a republic could be main- 
tained, even were we foolish enough to desire it. There is reason, 
therefore, to expect a long continuance of our systems. Party and 
passion, doubtless, may prevail at times, and much temporary mis- 
chief be done. Even modes and forms may be changed, and 
perhaps for the worse. But a great revolution, in regard to prop- 



208 

erty, must take place, before our governments can be moved from 
their rcpubliccin basis, unless they be violently struck off by milita- 
ry power. The people possess the property, more emphatically than 
it could ever be said of the people of any other country, and they 
can have no interest to overturn a government which protects that 
property by equal laws. 

If the nature of our institutions be to found government on prop- 
erty, and that it should look to those who hold property for its protec- 
tion, it is eiitirely just that property should have its due weight and 
consideration, in political arrangements. Life, and personal liberty, 
are, no doubt, to be protected by law; but property is also to be pro- 
tected by law, and is the fund out of which the means for protecting 
life and liberty are usually furnished. We have no experience that 
teaches us that any other rights are safe, where property is not safe. 
Contiscation and plunder, are generally in revolutionary commotions 
not far before banishment, imprisonment, and death. It would be 
monstrous to give even the name of government, to any association 
in which the rights of property should not be competently secured. 
The disastrous revolutions which the world has witnessed, those po- 
litical thunderstorms and earthquakes which have overthrown the pil- 
lars of society, from their very deepest foundations, have been revo- 
lutions agninst jyruptrty. — Since the honorable member from Quincy 
(President Adams) has alluded, on this occasion, to the history of the 
ancient states, it would be presumption in me to dwell upon it. It may 
be truly said, however, I think, that Rome herself is an example of the 
mischievous influence of the popular power, when disconnected with 
property, and in a corrupt age. It is true, the arm of C:esar prostrated 
her liberty ; but Caesar found his support within her very walls. Those 
who were profligate and necessitous, and factious and desperate, and 
capable therefore of being influenced by bribes and largesses, which 
were distributed with the utmost prodigality, outnumbered, and out 
voted, in the tribes and centuries, the substantial, sober, prudent and 
faithful citizens. Property was in the hands of one description of men, 
and power in those of another; and the balance of the constitution 
was destroyed. Let it never be forgotten, that it was the popular 
magistrates, elevated to ofiice where the bad outnumbered the good, — 
where those who had no stake in the commonwealth, by clamor, and 
noise, and numbers, drowned the voice of those who had, — that laid 
the neck of Rome at the feet of her conqueror. When Caesar, mani- 
festing a disposition to march his army into Italy, approached that 
little stream, which has become so memorable, Irom its association 
with his character and conduct, a decree was proposed in the senate, 
declaring him a pul)lic enemy, if he did not disband his troops. To 
this decree the popular tribunes, the sworn protectors of the people, 
interposed their negative; and thus opened the high road of Italy, 
and the gates of Rome herself, to the appi-oach of her conqueror. 

The English revolution of 1688 was a revolution in fai'or ofprop- 
erlij, as well as of other rights. It was brought about by the men of 
property, for their security; and our own immorfal revolution was 
undertaken, not to shake or plunder property, but to protect it. The 
acts of which the country coin[)lained, were such as violated rights 
of property. An immense majority of all those who had an interest 



209 

in tlie soil, were in favor of the revolution; and they carried it 
through, looking to its results for the security of their possessions. 
It was the property of the frugal yeomanry of New England, hard 
earned, but freely given, that enabled her to act her proper part, and 
perform her full duty, in achieving the independence of the country. 

I would not be thought, Mr. Chairman, to be among those who 
underrate the value of military service. My heart beats, I trust, as 
responsive as any one's, to a soldier's claim for honor and renown. 
It has ever been my opinion, however, that while celebrating the 
military achievements of our countrymen, in the revolutionary con- 
test, we have not always done equal justice to the merits, and the 
sufferings, of those, who sustained, on their property, and on their 
means of subsistence, the great burden of the war. Any one, who 
has had occasion to be acquainted with the records of the New Eng- 
land towns, knows well how to estimate those merits, and those 
sufferings. Nobler records of patriotism exist nowhere. Nowhere 
can there be found higher proofs of a spirit, that was ready to hazard 
all, to pledge all, to sacrifice all, in the cause of the country. Instan- 
ces were not unfrequent, in which small freeholders parted with 
their last hoof, and the last measure of corn from their granaries, to 
supply provision for the troops, and hire service for the ranks. The 
voice of Otis and of Adams in Faneuil Hall, found its full and true 
echo, in the little councils of the interior towns; and if within the 
Continental Congress patriotism shone more conspicuously, it did 
not there exist more truly, nor burn more fervently; it did not render 
the day more anxious, or the night more sleepless; it sent up no more 
ardent prayer to God, for succour; and it put forth in no greater 
degree, the fullness of its eflx)rt and the energy of its whole soul, 
and spirit, in the common cause, than it did in the small assemblies 
of the towns. I cannot, therefore, sir, agree that it is in favor of 
society, or in favor of the people, to constitute government, with an 
entire disregard to those who bear the public burdens in times of 
great exigency. — This question has been argued, as if it were propo- 
sed only to give an advantage to a few rich men. I do not so under- 
stand it. 1 consider it as giving property, generally, a representation 
in the Senate, both because it is just that it should have such 
representation, and because it is a convenient mode of providing 
that checic, which the constitution of the legislature requires. 1 do 
not say that such check might not be found in some other provision; 
but this is the provision already established, and it is, in my opinion, 
a just and proper one. 

1 will beg leave to ask, sir, whether property may not be said to 
deserve this portion of respect and power in the government? It 
pays, at this moment, I think, ^"ic sixths of all the public taxes: — 
one sixth only being raised on persons. Not only, sir, do these taxes 
support those burdens which all governments require, but we have, 
in New England, from early times holden property to be subject to 
anvttier great public use; — I mean tlie support of schools. 

In this particular we may be allowed to claim a merit of a very 
high and peculiar character. This commonwealth, with other of the 
New Enghmd states, early adopted, and lias constantly maintained 
the principle, that it is the undoubted right, and the bounden duty 

27 s* 



210 

of government, to provide for the instruction of all youth. That 
which is elsewhere lell to chance, or to charity, we secure by law. 
For the purpose of public instruction, we hold every man subject to 
taxation, in proportion to his property, and we look not to the ques- 
tion, whether he, himself, have or have not children to be benetited 
by the education for which he pays. T\ e regard it as a wise and 
liberal system of police, by which property, and life, and the peace 
of society are secured. We seek to prevent, in some measure, the 
extension of the penal code, by inspiring a salutary and conservative 
principle of virtue, and of knowledge, in an early age. We hope to 
excite a feeling of respectability, and a sense of character, by enlarg- 
ing the capacity, and increasing the sphere of intellectual enjoyment. 
By general instruction, we seek, as far as possible, to purify the 
whole moral atmosphere; to keep good sentiments uppermost, and to 
turn the strong current of feeling and opinion, as well as the cen- 
sures of the law, and the denunciations of religion, against immor- 
ality and crime. We hope for a security, beyond the law, and above 
the law, in the prevalence of enlightened and well principled moral 
sentiment. We hope to continue and to prolong the time, when, in 
the villages and farm houses of New England, there may be undis- 
turbed sleep, within unbarred doors. And knowing that our 
government rests directly on the public will, that we may preserve 
it, we endeavour to give a safe and proper direction to that public will. 
We do not, indeed, expect all men to be philosophers, or statesmen; 
but we confidently trust, and our expectation of the duration of our 
system of government rests on that trust, that by the diffusion of 
general knowledge, and good and virtuous sentiments, the political 
fabric may be secure, as well against open violence and overthrow, 
as against the slow but sure undermining of licentiousness. 

We know, sir, that at the present time an attempt is making in the 
English Parliament to provide by law for the education of the poor, 
and that a gentleman of distinguished character, (Mr. Brougham) 
has taken the lead, in presenting a plan to government for carrying 
that purpose into effect. And yet, although the representatives of 
the three kingdoms listened to him with astonishment as well as 
delight, we hear no principles with which we ourselves have not 
been familiar from youth; we see nothing in the plan, but an approach 
towards that system which has been established, in this state, for 
more than a century and a half It is said, that in England, not 
more than (me child in fijlceii, possesses the means of being taught to 
read and write; in Wales, one in twentij; in France, until lately, when 
some improvement was made, not more than one in thirly-jive. Now, 
sir, it is hardly too strong to say, that in this state, evcrij child posses- 
ses such means. It would be difficult to find an instance to the con- 
trary, unless where it was owing to the negligence of the parent — 
and in truth the means are actually used and enjoyed by nearly every 
one. A youth of fifteen, of either sex, who cannot both read and 
write, is very unfrequently to be found. How many such can any 
member of this convention remember to have met with in ten years.? 
Sir, who can make this comparison, or contemplate this spectacle, 
without delight, and a feeling of just pride? And yet, sir, what ia 
it but the property of the rich, devoted, by law, to the education ol 



211 

the poor, which has produced this state of things? Does any history 
show property more beneficently appUed? Did any governinciit 
ever subject the property of those who have estates, to a burden, 
for a purpose more favorable to the poor, or more useful to the whole 
community ? Sir, property and the power which the law exercises over 
it. for the purpose of instruction, is the basis of the system. It is 
entitled to the respect and protection of government, because, in a 
very vital respect, it aids and sustains government. The honorable 
member from Worcester, in contending for the admission of the mere 
popular principle in all branches of the government, told us, that our 
system rested on the intelligence of the community. He told us 
truly. But allow me, sir, to ask the honorable gentleman, what, but 
property, supplies the means of that intelligence? What living 
fountain feeds this ever-flowing, ever-refreshing, ever-fertilizing 
stream, of public instruction and general intelligence ? If we take 
away from the towns the power of assessing taxes on property, will 
the school houses remain open? If we deny to the poor, the bene- 
fit which they now derive from the property of the rich, will their 
children remain on their forms, or will they not, rather, be in the 
streets, in idleness and in vice? 

I might ask again, sir, how is it with religious instruction? Do 
not the towns and parishes, raise money, by vote of the majority, 
assessed on property, for the maintenance of religious worship? 
Are not the poor, as well as the rich benefited by the means of 
attending on public worship, and do they not, equally with the rich, 
possess a voice and vote, in the choice of the minister, and in all 
other parish concerns? Does any man, sir, wish to try the experi- 
ment, of striking out of the constitution the regard which it has 
hitherto maintained for property, and of foregoing also, the extraor- 
dinary benefit which society among us, for near two centuries, has 
derived, from laying the burden of religious and literary instruction 
of all classes upon property ? Does any man wish to see those only 
worshipping God, who are able to build churches and maintain 
ministers for themselves; and those children only educated, whose 
parents possess the means of educating them? Sir, it is as unwise 
as it is unjust, to make property an object of jealousy. Instead of 
being, in any just sense, a popular course, such a course would be 
most injurious and destructive to the best interests of the people. 
The nature of our laws sufficiently secures us against any dangerous 
accumulations; and, used and diffused as we have it, the whole 
operation of property is in the highest degree useful, both to the 
rich and to the poor. I rejoice, sir, that every man in this commu- 
nity may call all property his own, so far as he has occasion for it, 
to furnish for himself and his children the blessings of religious 
instruction and the elements of knowledge. This celestial, and this 
earthly light, he is entitled to by the fundamental laws. It is every 
poor man's undoubted birthright, it is the great blessing which this 
constitution has secured to him, it is his solace in life, and it may well 
be his consolation in death, that his country stands pledged, by the 
faith which it has plighted to all its citizens, to protect his children 
from ignorance, barbarism and vice. 

I will now proceed to ask, sir, whether we have not seen, and 



212 

whether we do not at this moment see, the advantage and benefit ot 
giving security to property, by this and all other reasonable and just 
provisions? The constitution has stood, on its present basis, forty 
years. Let me ask, what state has been more distinguished tor wise 
and wholesome legislation ? I speak, sir, without the partiality of a 
native, and also without intending the compliment ot^ a stranger; and 
I ask, what example have we had of better legislation ? No violelit 
measures affecting property, have been attempted. — Stop laws, 
suspension laws, tender laws, all the tribe of these arbitrary and 
tyrannical interferences between creditor and debtor, which, where- 
soever prtictised, generally end in the ruin of both, are strangers to 
our statute book. An upright and intelligent judiciary has come in 
aid of wholesome legislation; and general security, for public and 
private rights, has been the result. I do not say that this is pecu- 
liar — I do not say that others have not done as well. It is enough, 
that in these respects we shall be satisfied that we are not behind 
our neiglibours. INo doubt, sir, there are benefits of every kind, and 
of great value, in possessing a character of government, both in 
legislative and judicial administration, which secures well the rights 
of property; and we should find it so, by unfortunate experience, 
should that character be lost. There are millions of personal prop- 
erty, now in this commonwealth, which are easily transferable, and 
would be instantly transferred elsewhere, if any doubt existed of its 
entire security. I do not know how much of this stability of govern- 
ment, and of the general respect for it, may be fairly imputed to this 
particular mode of organizing the senate. It has, no doubt, had 
some efiect — It has shown a respect for the rights of property, and 
may have operated on opinion, as well as upon measures. Now, to 
strike out and obliterate it, as it seems to me, would be in a high 
degree unwise and improper. 

As to the ri^ht of apportioning senators upon this principle, I do 
not understand how there can be a question about it. All govern- 
ment is a modification of general principles, and general truths, with 
a view to practical utilitv. Personal liberty, for instance, is a clear 
right, and is to be provided for; but it is not a clearer right than the 
right of property, though it may be more important. It is therefore 
entitled to protection. But property is also to be protected; and 
when it is remembered, how great a portion of the people of this 
state possess property, I cannot understand how its protection or its 
influence is hostile to their rights and privileges. 

For these reasons, sir, I am in favor of maintaining that check, in 
the constitution of the legislature, which has so long existed there. 

I understand the gentleman from Worcester, (Mr. Lincoln) to be 
in favor of a check, but it seems to me he would place it in the 
wrong House. Besides, the sort of check he proposes, appears to me 
to be of a novel nature, as a balance in government. He pro- 
poses to choose the senators according to the number of inhabitants; 
and to choose representatives, not according to that number, but in 
proportions greatly unequal in the town coporations. It has been 
stated to result from computation, and I do not understand it is deni- 
ed, that, on his system, a majority of the representatives will be clio- 
sen by towns not containing one third pari of the whole population 



21 



Q 



of the state. I would beg to ask, sir, on what principle this can 
stand; especially in the judgment of those who regard pojmlation as 
the only just basis of representation? But sir, I have a preliminary 
objection to this system; which is, that it reverses all our common 
notions, and constitutes the popular House upon anti-popular princi- 
ples. We are to have a popular Senate of thirty-six members, and 
we are to place the check of the system in a House of Representa- 
tives of two hundred and fifty members! All money bills are to 
originate in the House, yet the House is not to be the popular 
branch. It is to exceed the Senate, seven or eight to one, in point 
of numbers — yet the Senate is to be chosen on the popular principle, 
and the House on some other principle. 

It is necessary here, sir, to consider the manner of electing rep- 
resentatives in this commonwealth, as heretofore practised, the 
necessity which exists of reducing the present number of represen- 
tatives, and the propositions which have been submitted for that 
purpose. Representation by towns or townships, (as they might 
have been originally more properly called) is peculiar to New Eng- 
land. It has existed however, since the first settlement of the 
country. These local districts are so small, and of such unequal 
population, that if every town is to have one representative, and 
larger towns as many more as their population, compared with the 
smallest town, would numerically entitle them to, a very numerous 
body must be the consequence, in any large state. Five hundred 
members, I understand, may now be constitutionally elected to the 
House of Representatives; the very statement of which number 
shows the necessity of reduction. I agree, sir, that this is a very 
difficult subject. Here are three hundred towns, all possessing the 
right of representation; and representation by towns, is an ancient 
habit of the people. For one, I am disposed to preserve this mode, 
so far as may be practicable. There is always an advantage in 
making the revisions, which circumstances may render necessary, in 
a manner which does no violence to ancient habits and established 
rules. I prefer therefore, a representation by towns, even though 
it should necessarily be somewhat numerous, to a division of the 
state into new districts, the parts of which might have little natural 
connexion or little actual intercourse with one another. But I 
ground my opinion in this respect on fitness and expediency, and the 
sentiments of the people; not on absolute right. The town corpo- 
rations, simply as such, cannot be said to have any right to represen- 
tation; except so far as the constitution creates such right. And this 
I apprehend to be the fallacy of the argument of the honorable 
member from Worcester. He contends, that the smallest town has 
a right to its representative. This is true; but the largest town 
(Boston) has a right also to fifty. These rights are precisely equal. 
They stand on the same ground, that is, on the provisions of the 
existing constitution. The honorable member thinks it quite just to 
reduce the right of the large town from fifty to ten, and yet, that 
there is no power to affect the right of the small town; either by 
uniting it with another small town for the choice of a representative, 
or otherwise. But 1 do not assent to that opinion. If it be right to 
take away half, or three fourths of the representation of the large 



214 ■ . 

towns, it cannot be right to leave that of the small towns undiminish- 
ed. The report of Uie committee proposes that these small towns 
shall elect a member every other year, half of them sending one 
year, and half the next; or else that two small towns shall unite and 
send one member every year. There is something ai)parently irreg- 
ular and anomalous in sending a member every other year; yet, per- 
haps, it is no great departure from former habits; because these 
small towns, being by the present constitution compelled to pay 
their own members, have not ordinarily sent them oftener, on the 
average, than once in two years. 

The honorable member from Worcester founds his argument on 
the right of town corporations, as such, to be represented in the leg- 
islature. If he only mean that right which the constitution at pres- 
ent secures, his observation is true, while the constitution remains 
unaltered. But if he intend to say that such right exists, pnor to 
the constitution, and independent of it, I ask, whence is it derived.? 
Representation of the people has heretofore been by towns, be- 
cause such a mode bus been thought convenient. Still it has been 
the representation of the people. It is no corporate right, to partake 
in the sovereign power and form part of the legislature. To estab 
lish this right, as a corporate right, the gentleman has enumerated 
the duties of the town corporation; such as the maintenance of pub- 
lic worship, public schools, and public highways; and insists that the 
performance of these duties gives the town a right to a representa- 
tive in the legislature. But I would ask, sir, what possible ground 
there is for this argument? The burden of these duties falls not on 
any corporate funds belonging to the towns, but on the people, un- 
der assessments made on them individually, in their town meetings. 
As distinct from their individual inhabiiunts, the towns have no inter 
est in these aifairs. These duties are imposed by general laws; they 
are to be performed by the people, and if the people are represent- 
ed in the making of these laws, the object is answered, whether they 
should be represented in one mode or another. But, farther, sir; are 
these municipal duties rendered to the state, or are they not rath- 
er performed by the people of the towns for their own benelit? 
The general treasury derives no supplies from all these contribu 
tions. If the towns maintain religious instruction, it is tor the benetit 
of their own inhabitants. If they support schools, it is for the edu 
cation of the children of their inhabitants; and if they maintain roads 
and bridges, it is also for their own convenience. And therefore, sir, 
although I repeat that for reasons of expediency I am in favor of 
maintaining town representation, as far as it can be done with a 
proper regard to equality of representation, I entirely disagree to 
the notion, that every town has a right, which an alteration of the 
constitution cannot divest, if the general good require such altera- 
tion, to have a representative in the legislature.— The honorable 
member has d(>clared that we are about to disfranchise corporations, 
and destroy chartered rights. He pronounces this system of repre- 
sentation an outrage, and declares that we arc forging chains and 
fetters for the people of INIassachusetts. " Chains and fetters!" 
This convention of delegates, chosen by the people within this 
month, and going back to the people, divested of all power, within 



215 

another month, yet occupying their span of time here, in forging 
chains and fetters for themselves and their constituents! " Chains 
and fetters!" — A popular assembly, of four hundred men, combi- 
ning to fabricate these manacles for the people — and nobody, but the 
honorable member from Worcester, with sagacity enough to detect 
the horrible conspiracy, or honesty enough to disclose it! " Chains 
and fetters!" An assembly, most variously composed; — men of all 
professions and all parties; of different ages, habits and associa- 
tions — all freely and recently chosen by their towns and districts; 
yet this assembly, in one short month, contriving to fetter and enslave 
itself and its constituents! Sir, there are some things too extrava- 
gant for the ornament and decoration of oratory; — some things too 
excessive, even for the fictions of poetry; and I am persuaded that a 
little reflection would satisfy the honorable member, that when he 
speaks of this assembly as committing outrages on the rights of the 
people, and as forging chains and fetters for their subjugation, he 
does as great injustice to his own character as a correct and manly 
debater, as he does to the motives and the intelligence of this body. 
I do not doubt, sir, that some inequality exists, in the mode of rep- 
resentatives proposed by the committee. A precise and exact equal- 
ity is not attainable, in any mode. Look to the gentleraan's own 
proposition. By that, Essex, with twenty thousand inhabitants 
more than Worcester, would have twenty representatives less. Suf- 
folk, which according to numbers would be entitled to twenty, would 
have, if I mistake not, eight or nine only. — Whatever else, sir, this 
proposition may be a specimen of, it is hardly a specimen of equal- 
ity. As to the House of Representatives, my view of the subject is 
this. ■ Under the present constitution, the towns have all a right to 
send representatives to the legislature, in a certain fixed propor- 
tion to their numbers. It has been found, that the full exercise of 
this right fills the House of Representatives with too numerous a 
body. What then is to be done ? — Why, sir, the delegates of the 
towns are here assembled, to agree, mutually"', on some reasonable 
mode of reduction. Now, sir, it is not for one party to stand sternly 
on its right, and demand all the concession from another. As to 
right, all are equal. The right which Hull possesses to send one, 
is the same as the right of Boston to send fifty. Mutual concession 
and accommodation, therefore, can alone accomplish the purpose of 
our meeting. If Boston consents, instead of fifty, to send but twelve 
or fifteen, the small towns must consent, either to be united, in the 
choice of their representatives, with other small towns, or to send 
a representative less frequently than every year; or to have an op- 
tion to do one or the other of these, hereafter, as shall be found 
most convenient. This is what the report of the committee propo- 
ses, and, as far as we have yet learned, a great majority of the 
delegates from small towns approve the plan. I am willing, there- 
fore, to vote for this part of the report of the committee; thinking 
it as just and fair a representation, and as much reduced in point 
of numbers, as can be reasonably hoped for, without giving up en- 
tirely the system of representation by towns. It is to be considered 
also, that according to the report of the committee, the pay of the 
members is to be out of the public treasury. Everybody must see 



216 

how this will operate on the large towns. Boston, for example, with 
its twelve or fourteen members, will pay for tifty. Be it so; it is 
incident to its property, and not at all an injustice, if proper weight 
be given to that property, and proper provision be made for its 
security. 

To recur, again, to the subject of the Senate — there is one remark, 
made by gentlemen on the other side, of which I wish to take no- 
tice. It is said, that if the principle of representation, in the Senate, 
by property, be correct, it ought to be carried through; whereas, it is 
limited and restrained, by a provision that no district shall be entitled 
to more than six senators. But this is a prohibition, on the making 
of great districts, generally; not merely a limitation of the effect of 
the property principle. It prevents great districts from being made 
where the valuation is small, as well as where it is large. Were 
it not for this, or some similar prohibition, Worcester and Hamp- 
shire might have been joined, under the present constitution, and 
have sent perhaps ten or twelve senators. The limitation is a gen- 
eral one, introduced for general purposes; and if in a particular in- 
stance it bears hard on any county, this should be regarded as an 
evil incident to a good and salutary rule, and ought to be, as I 
doubt not it will be, quietly borne. 

I forbear, Mr. Chairman, to take notice of many minor objections 
to the report of the committee. The defence of that report, espe- 
cially in its details, properly belongs to other and abler hands. My 
purpose in addressing you, was, simply, to consider the propriety of 
providing in one branch of the legislature a real check upon the 
other. And as I look upon that principle to be of the highest prac- 
tical importance, and as it has seemed to me that the doctrines con- 
tended for would go to subvert it, I hope I may be pardoned for 
detaining the committee so long. 



REMARKS 



IN THE CONVENTION, UPON A RESOLUTION TO ALTER THE CONSTI- 
TUTION, SO THAT JUDICIAL OFFICERS SHALL BE REMOVABLE BY 
THE GOVERNOR AND COUNCIL UPON THE ADDRESS OF TWO THIRDS 
(INSTEAD OF A MAJORITY) OF EACH BRANCH OF THE LEGISLA- 
TURE, AND ALSO THAT THE LEGISLATURE SHALL HAVE POWER TO 
CREATE A SUPREME COURT OF EQUITY AND A COURT OF APPEALS. 



Regrets are vain for what is past; yet I hardly know how it has 
been thought to be a regular course of proceeding, to go into com- 
mittee on this subject, before taking up the several propositions 
which now await their final readings on the President's table. The 
consequence is, that this question comes on by surprise. The 
chairman of the select committee is not present; many of the most 
distinguished members of the convention are personally so situated, 
as not to be willing to take part in the debate, — and the first law 
officer of the government, a member of the committee, happens at 
this moment to be in a place (the chair of the committee of the 
whole) which deprives us of the benefit of his observations. Under 
these circumstances, I had hoped the committee would rise. — It has, 
however, been determined otherwise, and I must therefore beg their 
indulgence while I make a few observations. 

As the constitution now stands, all judges are liable to be removed 
from office, by the governor, with the consent of the council, on the 
address of the two houses of the legislature. It is not made neces- 
sary that the two houses should give any reasons for their address, 
or that the judge should have an opportunity to be heard. I look 
upon this as against common right, as well as repugnant to the gen- 
eral principles of the government. The commission of the judge 
purports to be, on the face of it, during good behavior. He has an 
interest, in his office. To give an authority to the legislature to de- 
prive him of this, without trial or accusation, is manifestly to place 
the judges at the pleasure of the legislature. 

The question is not what the legislature probably will do, but what 
they may do. If the judges, in fact, hold their offices only so long 
as the legislature see fit, then it is vain and illusory to say that the 
judges are independent men, incapable of being influenced by hope 
or by fear; but the tenure of their office is not independent. The 
general theory and principle of the government is broken in upon, 
by giving the legislature this power. The departments of govern- 
28 T 



218 

ment are not equal, coordinate and independent, while one is thus 
at the mercy of the others. What would be said of a proposition 
to authorise the governor or judges to remove a senator, or member 
of the house of representatives from office ? — And yet, the general 
theory of the constitution is to make the judges as independent as 
members of the legislature. I know not whether a greater improve- 
ment has been made in government than to separate the judiciary 
from the executive and legislative branches, and to provide for the 
decision of private rights, in a manner, wholly uninfluenced by rea- 
sons of state, or considerations of party or of policy. It is the glory 
of the British constitution to have led in the establishment of this 
most important principle. It did not exist m England before the 
revolution of 1688, and its introduction has seemed to give a new 
character to the tribunals. It is not necessary to state the evils 
which had been experienced, in that country, from dependent and 
timeservmg judges. In matters of mere property, in causes of no 
political or public bearing, they might perhaps be safely trusted; 
'but in great questions concerning public liberty, or the rights of the 
subject, they were, in too many cases, not fit to be trusted at all. 
AVho would now quote Scroggs, or Saunders, or Jeffries, on a ques- 
tion concerning the right of the habeas corpus, or the right of 
suffrage, or the liberty of the press, or any other subject closely 
connected with political freedom? Yet on all these sulijects, the 
sentiments of the English judges since the revolution, — of Somers, 
Holt, Jreby, Jekyl, &c., are, in general, favorable to civil liberty, 
and receive and deserve great attention, whenever referred to In- 
deed, Massachusetts herself knows, by her own history, Avhat is to 
be expected from dependent judges. — Her own charter was declared 
forfeited, without a hearing, in a court where such judges sat. 

When Charles the second, and his brother after him, attempted 
the destruction of chartered rights, both in the kingdom and out of 
it, the mode was by judgments obtained in the courts. It is well 
known, that after the prosecution against the city of London was 
commenced, and while it was pending, the judges were changed; 
and Saunders, who had been consulted on the occasion, and had 
advised the proceeding on the part of the crown, was made chief 
justice for the very purpose of giving a judgment in favor of the 
crown; his predecessor being removed to make room for him. 
Since the revolution of 1688, an entire new character has been given 
to English judicature. The judges have been made independent, 
and the benefit has been widely and deeply felt. A similar improve- 
ment seems to have made its way into Scotland. Before the union 
of the kingdoms, it cannot be said that there was any judicial inde- 
pendence in Scotland; and the highest names in Scottish jurispru- 
dence have been charged with being under influences which could 
not, in modern times, be endured. It is even said, that the practice 
of entails did not extensively exist in Scotland till about the time of 
the reigns of the last princes of the Stuart race, and was then in- 
troduced, to guard against unjust forfeitures. It is strange indeed, 
that this should happen at so late a period, and that a most unnatu- 
ral and artiiicial state of property should be owing to the fear of 
deoendcnf judicatures. I might add licre, tliat the lurUable jurisdic- 



219 

tions, the greatest almost of all evils, were not abolished in Scotland 
till about the middle of the last century; so slowly does improvement 
make progress when opposed by ignorance, prejudice or interest. 

In our own country, it was for years a topic of complaint, before 
the revolution, that justice was administered, in some of the colo- 
nies, by judges dependent on the British crown. The Declaration 
of Independence, itself, puts forth this as a prominent grievance, 
among those which justified the revolution. The British king, it 
declares, " had made judges dependent on his own will alone, for the 
tenure of their offices." It was therefore to be expected, that in 
establishing their own governments, this important point of the in- 
dependence of the judicial power would be regarded by the states. 
Some of them have made greater, and others less provision on this 
subject; the more recent constitutions, I believe, being generally 
framed with the most and best guards for judicial independence. 

Those who oppose any additional security for the tenure of judicial 
office, have pressed to know what evil has been experienced — what 
injury has arisen from the constitution as it is. Perhaps none; — 
but if evils probably may arise, the question is, whether the subject 
be not so important as to render it prudent to guard against that 
evil. If evil do arise, we may be sure it will be a great evil; if 
this power should happen to be abused, it would be most mischiev- 
ous in its consequences. It is not a sufficient answer, to say that 
we have as yet felt no inconvenience. We are bound to look to 
probable future events. We have, too, the experience of other 
states. Connecticut, having had judges appointed annually, from 
the time of Charles the second, in the recent alteration of her con- 
stitution, has provided, that hereafter they shall hold their office 
during good behavior, subject to removal on the address of two thirds 
of each house of the legislature. In Pennsylvania, the judges may 
be removed, " for any reasonable cause," on the address of two 
thirds of the two houses. In some of the states, three fourths of each 
house is required. The new constitution of Maine has a provision, 
with which I should be content; which is, that no judge shall be 
liable to be removed by the legislature till the matter of his accusa- 
tion has been made known to him, and he has had an opportunity of 
being heard in his defence. This seems no more than common jus- 
tice; and yet it is much greater than any security which at present 
exists in the constitution of this commonwealth. 

It will be found, if I mistake not, that there are not more than 
two or three, out of all the states, which have left the tenure of 
judicial office at the entire pleasure of the legislature. It cannot 
be denied, that one great object of written constitutions is to keep 
the departments of government as distinct as possible; and for this 
purpose tc impose restraints. And it is equally true, that there is 
no department on which it is more necessary to impose restraints 
than the legislature. The tendency of things is almost always to 
augment the power of that department, in its relation to the judiciary. 
The judiciary is composed of few persons, and those not such as mix 
habitually in the pursuits and objects which most engage public men. 
They are not, or never should be, political men. They have often 
unpleasant duties to perform, and their conduct is often liable to be 



220 

canvassed and censured, where their reasons for it are not known, 
or cannot be understood. The legislature holds the public purse. 
It fixes the compensation of all other departments : it applies, as 
well as raises, all revenue. It is a numerous body, and necessarily 
carries along with it a great force of public opinion. Its members 
are public men, in constant contact with one another, and with their 
constituents. It would seem to be plain enough, that, without 
constitutional provisions which should be fixed and certain, such a 
department, in case of excitement, would be able to encroach on the 
judiciary. — Therefore is it, that a security of judicial independence 
becomes necessary; and the question is, whether that independence 
be at present sufficiently secured. 

The constitution being the supreme law, it follows of course, that 
every act of the legislature, contrary to that law, must be void. 
But who shall decide this question? Shall the legislature itself 
decide it? If so, then the constitution ceases to be a legal and 
becomes only a moral restraint on the legislature. If they, and they 
only, are to judge whether their acts be conformable to the constitu- 
tion, then the constitution is admonitory or advisory only; not legally 
binding; because, if the conslrudion of it rest wholly with them, their 
discretion.) in particular cases, may be in favor of very erroneous and 
dangerous constructions. Hence the courts of law, necessarily, 
when the case arises, must decide upon the validity of particular 
acts. — These cases are rare, at least in this commonwealth; but they 
would probably be. less so, if the power of the judiciary, in this 
respect, were less respectable than it is. 

It is the theory and plan of the constitution to restrain the legisla- 
ture, as well as other departments, and to subject their acts to 
judicial decision, whenever it appears that such acts infringe consti- 
tutional limits; and without this check, no certain limitation could 
exist on the exercise of legislative power. The constitution, for 
example, declares, that the legislature shall not suspend the benefit 
of the writ of habeas corpus, except under certain limitations. If a 
law should happen to be passed restraining personal liberty, and an 
individual, feeling oppressed by it, should apply for his habeas corpus^ 
must not the judges decide what is the benefit of habeas corpus, 
intended by the constitution; what it is to suspend it, and whether 
the acts of the legislature do, in the given case, conform to the con- 
stitution? AH these questions would of course arise. The judge 
is bound by his oath to decide according to law. — The constitution 
is the supreme law. Any act of the legislature, therefore, inconsis- 
tent with that supreme law, must yield to it; and any judge, seeing 
this inconsistency, and yet giving effect to the law, would violate 
both his duty and his oath. But it is evident that this power, to be 
useful, must be lodged in independent hands. If the .Ugialature 
may remove judges at pleasure, assigning no cause for such removal, 
of course it is not to be expected that they would oft:en find decisions 
against the constitutionality of their own acts. If the legislature 
should, unhappily, be in a temper to do a violent thing, it would 
probably take care to sec that the bench of justice was so constituted 
as to agree with it in opinion. 



221 

It is unpleasant to allude to other states for negative examples; yet 
if any one were inclined to the inquiry, it might be found, that cases 
had happened in which laws, known to be at best very questiona- 
ble as to their consistency with the constitution, had been passed; 
and at the same session, effectual measures taken, under the power 
of removal by address, to create a new bench. Such a coincidence 
might be accidental; but the happening of such accidents often 
would destroy the balance of free governments. The history of all 
the states, I believe, shows the necessity of settled limits to legisla- 
tive power. There are reasons, entirely consistent with upright and 
patriotic motives, which, nevertheless, evince the danger of legisla- 
tive encroachments. The subject is fully treated by Mr. Madison, 
in some numbers of the Federalist, which well deserve the consid- 
eration of the convention. 

There is nothing, afler all, so important to individuals as the up- 
right administration of justice. This comes home to every man; life, 
liberty, reputation, property, all depend on this'. — jVo government 
does its duty to the people, which does not make ample and stable 
provision for the exercise of this part of its powers. Nor is it 
enough, that there are courts which will deal justly with mere private 
questions. We look to the judicial tribunal for protection against 
illegal or unconstitutional acts, from whatever quarter they may pro- 
ceed. The courts of law, independent judges, and enlightened 
juries, are citadels of popular liberty, as well as temples of private 
justice. The most essential rights connected with political liberty, 
are there canvassed, discussed, and maintained; and if it should at 
any time so happen that these rights should be invaded, there is no 
remedy but a reliance on the courts, to protect and vindicate them. 
There is danger, also, that legislative bodies will sometimes pass laws 
interfering with other private rights, besides those connected with 
political liberty. Individuals are too apt to apply to the legislative 
power to interfere with private cases, or private property; and such 
applications sometimes meet with favor and support. There would 
be no security, if these interferences were not subject to some sub- 
sequent constitutional revision, where all parties could bo. heard, and 
justice administered according to standing laws. 

These considerations are among those which, in my opinion, ren- 
der an independent judiciary equally essential to the preservation of 
private rights and public liberty. I lament the necessity of deciding 
this question at the present moment; and should hope, if such imme- 
diate decision were not demanded, that some modification of this 
report might prove acceptable to the committee, since, in my judg- 
ment, some provision, beyond what exists in the present constitution, 
is necessary. 



•y-TP 



SPEECH 

ON THE BANK OF THE UNITED STATES, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE 
OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, JAN. 2, 1815. 

On the 2d January, 1815, the bill to incorporate a bank being under consideration, Mr. 
Webster moved that it be recommitted to a select committee, witli insU-uctions to make 
the following alterations, to wit : — 

1. To reduce the capital to twenty-five millions, with liberty to tlie government to subscribe 

on its own account, five millions. 

2. To stj-ike out the thirteenth section. 

3. To strike out so much of said bill as makes it obligatory on the bank to lend money to 

government. 

4. To introduce a section providing, that if tlie bank do not commence its operations with- 

in tJie space of months, from the day of the passing of the act, the charter shall 

thereby be forfeited. 

5. To insert a section allowing interest at the rate of per cent, on any bill or note 

of the bank, of which payment shall have been duly demanded, according to its tenor, 
and refused ; and to inflict penaUies on any directors who shall issue any bills or notes 
during any suspension of specie payment at the bank. 

6 To provide that the said twenty-five millions of capital stock shall be composed of five 
millions of specie, and twenty millions of any of the stocks of tlie United States bear- 
ing an interest of six per cent, or of treasury notes. 

7, To strike out of the bill that part of it which restrains the bank from selling its stock 
during tlie war. 

In su|iport of this motion, the following speech was delivered. The motion did not prevail, 
but tlie lull itself was rejected the same day on the third reading. Some of the main 
principles of tlie.se instructions were incorporated into die charter of tlie present bank, 
when tliat charter was granted the following year; especially those, wliicli were more 
particularly designed to insure the payment of the notes of tlie bank in specie, at all 
times, on demand. 

However the House may dispose of the motion before it, I do 
not regret that it has been made. One object intended by it, at 
least, is acconipUshed. It presents a choice, and it shows that the 
opposition which exists to the bill in its present state, is not an un- 
distinguishing hostility to whatever may be proposed as a national 
^ank, but a hostility to an institution of such a useless and danger- 
ous nature, as it is believed the existing provisions of the bill would 
establish. 

If the bill should be recommitted and amended according to the 
instructions which 1 have moved, its principles will be materially 
chuu'fed. Tiie capital of the proposed liaiik will be reduced from 



223 

fifty to thirty millions : and composed of specie and stocks in nearly 
the same proportions as the capital of the former bank of the United 
States. The obligation to lend thirty millions of dollars to govern- 
ment, an obligation which cannot be performed without committing 
an act of bankruptcy, will be struck out. The power to suspend 
the payment of its notes and bills will be abolished, and the prompt 
and faithful execution of its contracts secured, as far as, from the 
nature of things, it can be secured. The restriction on the sale of 
its stocks will be removed, and as it is a monopoly, provision will be 
made that if it should not commence its operations in reasonable 
time, the grant shall be forfeited. Thus amended, the bill would 
establish an institution not unlike the last bank of the United States 
in any particular which is deemed material, excepting only the legal- 
ized amount of capital. 

To a bank of this nature I should at any time be willing to give 
my support, not as a measure of temporary policy, or as an expedi- 
ent to find means of relief from the present poverty of the treasury; 
but as an institution of permanent interest and importance, useful 
to the government and country at all times, and most useful in times 
of commerce and prosperity. 

I am sure, sir, that the advantages which would at present result 
from any bank, are greatly overrated. To look to a bank, as a 
source capable, not only of afibrding a circulating medium to the 
country, but also of supplying the ways and means of carrying on 
the war, especially at a time when the country is without commerce, 
is to expect much more than ever will be obtained. Such high- 
wrought hopes can end only in disappointment. The means of sup- 
porting an expensive war are not of quite so easy acquisition. 
Banks are not revenue. They cannot supply its place. They may 
afford facilities to its collection and distribution. They may furnish, 
with convenience, temporary loans to government, in anticipation 
of its taxes, and render important assistance, in divers ways, to the 
general operation of finance. They are useful to the state in their 
proper place and sphere, but they are not sources of national income. 

The fountains of revenue must be sunk deeper. The credit and 
circulation of bank paper are the effects, rather than the causes of 
a prf)fitable commerce, and a well ordered system of finance. They 
are the props of national wealth and prosperity, not the foundations 
of them. Whoever shall attempt to restore the fallen credit of this 
country, by the creating of new banks, merely that they may create 
new paper, and that government may have a chance of borrowing 
where it has not borrowed before, will find himself miserably de- 
ceived. It is under the influence of no such vain hones, that 1 yield 
my assent to the establishment of a bank on sound and proper prin- 
ciples. The principal good I expect from it is rather future than 
present. I do not see, indeed, that it is likely to produce evil at 
any time. In times to come, it will, I hope, be useful. If it were 
only to be harmless, there would be sufficient reason why it should 
be supported, in preference to such a contrivance as is now in con- 
templation. 

The bank which will be erected by the bill, if it should pass in 
its present form, is of a most extraordinary, and, as I think, alarm- 



224 

ing nature. The capital is to be fifty millions of dollars; five mil- 
lions in gold and silver, twenty millions in the public debt created 
since the war, ten millions in treasury notes, and fifteen millions to 
be subscribed by government, in stock to be created for that pur- 
pose. The ten millions in treasury iiotes, when received in pay- 
ment of subscriptions to the bank, are to be funded also in United 
States' stocks. The stock subscribed by government on its own 
account, and those in which the treasury notes are to be funded, to 
be redeemable only at the pleasure of the government. The war 
stock will be redeemable according to the terms upon which the late 
loans have been negotiated. 

The capital of the bank, then, will be five millions of specie and 
forty-five millions of government stocks. In other words, the bank 
will possess five millions of dollars, and the government Avill owe it 
forty-five millions. This debt from government, the bank is re- 
strained from selling during the war, and government is excused 
from paying, until it shall see fit. The bank is also to be under 
obligation to loan government thirty millions of dollars on demand, 
to be repaid, not when the convenience or necessity of the bank may 
require, but when debts due to the bank, from government, are paid; 
that is, when it shall be the good pleasure of government. This 
sum of thirty millions is to supply the necessities of government, 
and to supersede the occasion of other loans. This loan will doubt- 
less be made on the first day of the existence of the bank, because 
the public wants can admit of no delay. Its condition, then, will be, 
that it has five millions of specie, if it has been able to obtain so 
much, and a debt of seventy-five millions, no part of which it can 
either sell or call in, due to it from government. 

The loan of thirty millions to government can only be made by 
an immediate issue of bills to that amount. If these bills should 
return, the bank will not be able to pay them. This is certain, and 
to remedy this inconvenience, power is given to the directors, by the 
act, to suspend, at their own discretion, the payment of their notes, 
until the President of the United States shall otherwise order. The 
President will give no such order, because the necessities of gov- 
ernment will compel it to draw on the bank till the bank becomes 
as necessitous as itself. Indeed, whatever orders may be given or 
withheld, it will be utterly impossible for the bank to pay its notes. 
No such thing is expected from it. The first note it issues will be 
dishonored on its return, and yet it will continue to pour out its 
paper, so long as government can apply it in any degree to its pur- 
poses. 

What sort of an institution, sir, is this? It looks less like a bank, 
than a department of government. It will be properly the paper- 
money department. Its capital is government debts ; the amount 
of its issues will depend on government necessities; government, in 
effect, absolves itself from its own debts to the bank, and by way 
of compensation absolves the bank from its own contracts with 
others. This is, indeed, a wonderful scheme of finance. The 
government is to grow rich, because it is to borrow without the obli- 
gation of repaying, and is to borrow of a bank which issues paper 
without liability to redeem it. If this bank, like other institutions 



225 

which dull and plodding common sense has erected, were to pay its 
debts, it must have some limits to its issues of paper, and therefore, 
there would be a point beyond which it could not make loans to 
government. This would fall short of the wishes of the contrivers 
of this system. They provide for an unlimited issue of paper, in 
an entire exemption from payment. They found their bank, in the 
first place, on the discredit of government, and then hope to enrich 
government out of the insolvency of their bank. With them, pov- 
erty itself is the main source of supply, and bankruptcy a mine of 
inexhaustible treasure. They rely not in the ability of the bank, 
but in its beggary; not in gold and silver collected in its vaults, to 
pay its debts, and fulfil its promises, but in its locks and bars, pro- 
vided by statute, to fasten its doors against the solicitations and 
clamors of importunate creditors. Such an institution, they flatter 
themselves, will not only be able to sustain itself, but to buoy up 
the sinking credit of the government. A bank which does not pay, 
is to guaranty the engagements of a government which does not pay! 
"John Doe is to become security for Richard Roe." Thus the 
empty vaults of the treasury are to be filled from the equally empty 
vaults of the bank, and the ingenious invention of a partnership be- 
tween insolvents is to restore and reestablish the credit of both. 

Sir, I can view this only as a system of rank speculation, and 
enormous mischief. Nothing in our condition is worse, iir my opin- 
ion, than the inclination of government to throw itself upon such 
desperate courses. If we are to be saved, it is not to be by such 
means. If public credit is to be restored, this is not one of the 
measures that will help to restore it. If the treasury is exhausted, 
this bank will not fill it with anything valuable. If a safe circula- 
ting medium be wanted for the community, it will not be found in 
the paper of such a corporation. 

I wish, sir, that those who imagine that these objects or any of 
them will be effected by such a bank as this, would describe the 
manner in which they expect it to be done. What is the process, 
which is to produce these results.' If it is perceived, it can be de- 
scribed. The bank will not operate either by miracle or magic. 
Whoever expects any good from it, ought to be able to tell us in 
what way that good is to be produced. As yet, we have had noth- 
ing but general ideas, and vague and loose expressions. An indefi- 
nite and indistinct notion is entertained, nobody here seems to know 
on what ground, that this bank is to reanimate public credit, fill the 
treasury, and remove all the evils that have arisen from the depre- 
ciation of the paper of the existing banks. 

Some gentlemen who do not profess themselves to be, in all re- 
spects, pleased with the provisions of the bill, seem to content them- 
selves with an idea that nothing better can be obtained, and that it 
is necessary to do something. A strong impression that something 
must be done, is the origin of many bad measures. It is easy, sir, 
to do something, but the object is to do something useful. It is 
better to do nothing than to do mischief It is much better, in my 
opinion, to make no bank, than to pass the bill as it now is. 

Tiie interests to be affected by this measure, the finances, the 
public credit, and the circulating medium of the country are too 
29 



226 

important to be hazarded in schemes Hke these. If we wish to re- 
store the pubhc credit, and to reestabhsh the finances, we have the 
beaten road before us. All true analogy, all experience and all just 
knowledge of ourselves and our condition point one way. A wise 
and systematic economy, and a settled and substantial revenue, are 
the means to be relied on; not excessive issues of bank notes, a 
forced circulation, and all the miserable contrivances to which 
political folly can resort, with the idle expectation of giving to mere 
paper the quality of money. 

These are all the inventions of a shortsighted policy, vexed and 
goaded by the necessities of the moment, and thinking less of a 
permanent remedy, than of shifts and expedients to avoid the pre- 
sent distress. They have been a thousand times adopted, and a 
thousand times exploded as delusive and ruinous, as destructive of 
all solid revenue, and incompatible with the security of private pro- 
perty. 

It is, sir, sufficiently obvious, that to produce any benefit, this 
bank must be so constructed, as that its notes shall have credit with 
the public. The first inquiry, therefore, should be, whether the 
bills of a bank of this kind will not be immediately and greatly 
depreciated. I think they will. It would be a wonder if they 
should not. This effect will be produced by that excessive issue of 
its paper which the bank must make in its loan to government. 
Whether its issues of paper are excessive, will depend not on the 
nominal amount of its capital, but on its abiUty to redeem it. This 
is the only safe criterion. Very special cases may perhaps furnish 
exceptions, but there is, in general, no security for the credit of 
paper, but the ability, in those who emit, to redeem it. Whenever 
bank notes are not convertible into gold and silver, at the will of the 
holder, they become of less value than gold and silver. All experi- 
ments on this subject have come to the same result. It is so clear, 
and has been so universally admitted, that it would be waste of time 
to dwell upon it. The depreciation may not be sensibly perceived 
the first day, or the first week, it takes place. It will first be dis- 
cerned in what is called the rise of specie; it will next be seen in 
the increased price of all commodities. The circulating medium 
of a commercial community, must be that which is also the circula- 
ting medium of other commercial communities, or must be capable 
of being converted into that medium, without loss. It must be able, 
not only to pass in payments and receipts, among individuals of the 
same society and nation, but to adjust and discharge the balance of 
exchanges between different nations. It must be something, which 
has a value abroad, as well as at home, and by which foreign as 
well as domestic debts can be satisfied. The precious metals alone 
answer these purposes. They alone, therefore, are money, and 
whatever else is to perform the offices of money, must be their rep- 
resentative, and capable of being turned into them at will. So long 
as banlr paper retains this quality, it is a substitute fi)r money; di- 
vested of this, nothing can give it that character. No solidity-of 
funds, no sufficiency of assets, no confidence in the solvency of 
banking institutions has ever enabled them to keep up their paper 
to the value of gold and silver, any longer than they paid gold and 



227 

silver for it, on demand. This will continue to be the case so long 
as those metals shall continue to be the standard of value and the 
general circulating medium among nations. 

A striking illustration of this common principle is found in the 
early history of the bank of England. In the year 1797, it had 
been so liberal of its loans, that it was compelled to suspend the pay- 
ment of its notes. Its paper immediately fell to a discount of near 
twenty ^er cent. Yet such was the public opinion of the solidity of 
its funds, that its stock then sold for one hundred and ten per cent., 
although no more than sixty per cent, upon the subscription had been 
paid in. 

The same fate, as is well known, attended the banks of Scotland, 
when they adopted the practice of inserting in their notes a clause, 
giving the banks an option of paying their notes on demand, or six 
niontiis after demand, with interest. Paper of this sort was not 
convertible into specie, at the pleasure of the holder ; and no con- 
viction of the ability of the bank which issued it, could preserve it 
from depreciation. 

The suspension of specie payments by the bank of England, 
1797, and the consequences which followed, afford no argument to 
overthrow this general experience. If bank of England notes were 
not immediately depreciated, on that occasion, depreciation, never- 
theless, did ensue. Very favorable causes existed to prevent their 
sudden depression. It was an old and rich institution. It was 
known to be under the most discreet and indepeudent management. 
Government had no control over it, to force it to make loans against 
its interest or its will. On the contrary, it compelled the government 
to pay, though with much inconvenience to itself, a very considera- 
ble sum which was due to it. The country enjoyed, at that time, 
an extensive commerce, and a revenue of three hundred millions of 
dollars was collected and distributed through the bank. Under all 
these advantages, however, the difference of price between bank 
notes and coin became at one time so great, as to threaten the most 
dangerous consequences. 

Suppose the condition of England to have been reversed. Sup- 
pose that, instead of a prosperous and increasing commerce, she had 
suffered the ruin of her trade, and that the product of her manufac- 
tures had lain upon her hands, as the product of our agriculture now 
perishes in ours. Does any one imagine that her circulating paper 
could have existed and maintained any credit, in such a change of 
her condition 1 What ought to surprise us is not that her bank 
paper was depreciated, but that it was not depreciated sooner and 
lower than in fact it was. The reason can only be found in that 
extraordinary combination of favorable circumstances, which never 
existed before, and is hardly to be expected again. Much less is it 
to be discovered in our condition at present. 

But we have experience nearer home. The paper of all the banks 
south of New England has become depreciated to an alarming ex- 
tent. This cannot be denied. All that is said of the existence of 
this depreciation remote from the banks, is unfounded aud idle. It 
exists everywhere. The rates of exchan<ie, both foreisin and do- 
mestic, puts this point beyond coutroversy. If a bill of exchange 



228 

on Europe can be purchased, as it may, twenty per cent, cheaper in 
Boston than in Baltimore, the reason must be that it is paid lor, in 
Boston, in money, and in Baltimore, in something twenty per cent. 
less valuable than money. 

Notwithstanding the depression of their paper, it is not probable 
that any doubt is entertained of the sufficiency of the funds of the 
principal banks. Certainly no such doubt is the cause of the fall of 
their paper; because the depression of the paper of all the banks in 
any place, is, as far as I learn, generally uniform and equal; where- 
as if public opinion proceeded at all upon the adequacy or inadequa- 
cy of their funds, it would necessarily come to different results, in 
different cases, as some of these institutions must be supposed to 
be richer than others. 

Sir, something must be discovered which has hitherto escaped 
the observation of mankind, before you can give to paper, intended 
for circulation, the value of a metallic currency, any longer than it 
represents that currency, and is convertible into it, at the will of 
the holder. 

The paper, then, of this bank, if y6u make it, will be depreciated, 
for the same reason that the paper of other banks that have gone 
before it, and of those which now exist around us has been depreci 
ated, because it is not to pay specie for its notes. 

Other institutions, setting out perhaps on honest principles, have 
fallen into discredit, through mismanagement or misfortune. But 
this bank is to begin with insolvency. It is to issue its bills to the 
amount of thirty millions, when everybody knows it cannot pay 
them. It is to commence its existence in dishonor. It is to draw 
its first breath in disgrace. The promise contained in the first note 
it sends forth, is to be a false promise, and whoever receives the 
note, is to take it, with the knowledge that it is not to be paid 
according to the terms of it. 

But this, sir, is not all. The framers of this bill have not done 
their work by halves. They have put the depreciation of the notes 
of their bank beyond all doubt or uncertainty. They have made 
assurance doubly sure. In addition to excessive issues of paper, 
and the failure to make payments, both which they provide for by 
law, they make the capital of the bank, to consist principally of 
public stock. 

If this stock should be sold as in the former bank of the United 
States, the evil would be less. But the bank has not the power to 
sell it, and for all purposes of enabling it to fulfil its engagements, 
its funds might as well be at the bottom of the ocean, as in govern- 
ment stocks, of which it cannot enforce payment, and of which it 
cannot dispose. 

The credit of this institution is to be founded on public funds, not 
on private property, or commercial credit. It is to be a financial 
not a commercial bank. Its credit can hardly, therefore, be better 
at any time than the credit of the government. If the stocks be 
depreciated, so of course must everything be which rests on the 
stocks. 

It would require extraordinary ingenuity to show how a bank, 
which is founded on the public debt, is to have any better reputation 



229 

than the debt itself. It must be some very novel invention, which 
makes the superstructure keep its place, after the foundation has 
fallen. The argument seems to stand thus: The public funds, it is 
admitted, have little credit; the bank will have no credit which it 
does not borrow of the funds; but the bank will be in full credit. 

If, sir, we were in a temper to learn wisdom from experience, the 
history of most of the banks on the continent of Europe might teach 
us the futility of all these contrivances. Those were, like this be- 
fore us, established for the purposes of finance, not purposes of 
commerce. The same fortune has happened to them all. Their 
credit has sunk. Their respective governments go to them for 
money when they can get it nowhere else; and the banks can relieve 
their wants, only by new issues of their own paper. As this is not 
redeemed, the invariable consequence of depreciation follows; and 
this has sometimes led to the miserable and destructive expedient 
of depreciation of the coin itself 

Such are the banks of Petersburg, Copenhagen, Vienna, and 
other cities of Europe; and while the paper of these government 
banks has been thus depressed, that of other banks existing in their 
neighbourhood, unconnected with government, and conducting their 
business on the basis of commercial credit, has retained a value 
equivalent to that of coin. 

Excessive issues of paper and a close connexion with government, 
are the circumstances which of all others are the most certain to 
destroy the credit of bank paper. If there were no excessive issues, 
or, in other words, if the bank paid its notes in specie, on demand, 
its connexion with government and its interest in the funds would 
not, perhaps, materially affect the circulation of its paper, although 
they would naturally diminish the value of its stock. But when 
these two circumstances exist in the condition of any bank, that it 
does not pay its notes and that its funds are in public stocks, and all 
its operations intimately blended with the operations of government, 
nothing further need be known, to be quite sure that its paper will 
not answer the purpose of a creditable circulating medium. 

I look upon it, therefore, sir, as certain, that a very considerable 
discount will attach itself to the notes of this bank, the first day of 
their appearance; that this discount will continue to increase; and 
unless Congress should be able to furnish some remedy, which is 
not certain, the paper, in the end, wiir be worth nothing. If this 
happens, not only will no one of the benefits proposed be obtained, 
but evils of the most alarming magnitude will follow. All the hor- 
rors of a paper-money system are before us. If we venture on the 
present expedient, we shall hardly be able to avoid them. The ruin 
of public affairs and the wreck of private property will ensue. 

I would ask, sir, whether the friends of this measure have well 
considered what effect it will produce on the revenue of the coun- 
try? By the provisions of this bill, the notes of this bank are to be 
received in payment of all taxes and other dues to government. 
They cannot be refused on account of the depreciation of their val- 
ue. Government binds itself to receive them at par; although it 
should be obliged immediately to pay them out, at a discount of a 
hundred per cent. It is certain, then, that a loss in the revenue will 

V 



230 

be sustained, equal to any depreciation which may take place in this 
paper; and when the paper shall come to nothing, the revenue of 
the country will come to nothing along with it. This has happened 
to other countries, where this wretched system has been adopted, 
and it will happen -here. 

The Austrian government resorted to a similar experiment, in 
a very critical period of its affairs, in 1809, the year of the last 
campaign between that country and France, previous to the coali- 
tion. Pressed by the necessities of the occasion, the government 
caused a large quantity of paper to be issued, which was to be re- 
ceived in imposts and taxes. The paper immediately fell to a 
depreciation of four for one. The consequence was, that the gov- 
ernment lost its revenue, and, with it, the means of supplying its 
armies and defending its empire. 

Is this government now ready, sir, to put its resources all at haz- 
ard, by pursuing a similar course? Is it ready to sacrifice its whole 
substantial revenue and permanent supplies to an ill-contrived, ill- 
considered, dangerous and ruinous project, adopted only as the 
means of obtaining a little present and momentary relief? 

It ought to be considered, also, what effects this bank will produce 
on othei- banking institutions already existing, and on the paper 
which they have issued. The aggregate capital of these institu- 
tions is large. Th« amount of their notes is large, and these notes 
constitute, at present, in a great portion of the country, the only 
circulating medium, if they can be called a circulating medium. 
Whatever affects this paper, either to raise it, or depress it lower 
than it is, affects the interests of every man in the community. 

It is sufficient on this point to refer to the memorial from the banks 
of New York. That assures us that it must be the operation of 
such a bank, as this bill would establish, to increase the difficulties 
and distress, which the existing banks now experience, and to ren- 
der it nearly impossible for them to resume the payment of their 
notes. This is what every man would naturally expect. Paper 
already depreciated, will necessarily be sunk still lower, when anoth- 
er flood of depreciated paper is forced into circulation. 

Very recently this government refused to extend the charter of 
the bank of the United States, upon the ground, that it was uncon- 
stitutional for Congress to create banks. Many of the state banks 
owe their existence to this 'decision. It was an invitation to the 
states to incorporate as much banking capital as would answer all 
the purposes of the country. Notwithstanding what we may now 
see and hear, it would then have been deemed a gross imputation 
on the consistency of government, if any man had expressed an 
expectation, that in five years all these constitutional scruples would 
be forgotten, all the dangers to political liberty from moneyed institu- 
tions disregarded, and a bank proposed upon the most extraordinary 
principles, with an unprecedented amount of capital, and with no 
obligatit)n to fulfil its contracts. 

The state banks have not forced themselves in the way of gov- 
ernment. Tiiey were established, many of them at least, when 
government had declared its purpose to have no bank of its own. 
They deserve some regard on their own account, and on account of 



23J 

those particularly concerned in them. But they deserve much more 
consideration, on account of the quantity of paper which is in cir- 
culation, and the interest which the whole community has in it. 

Let it be recollected also, sir, that the present condition of the 
banks is principally owing to their advances to government. The 
treasury has borrowed of the banks, or of those who themselves 
borrowed of the banks, till the banks have become as poor, and al- 
most as much discredited, as the treasury itself They have de- 
preciated their paper, nearly ruined themselves, and brought the 
sorest distress on the country, by doing that on a small scale, 
which this bank is to perform on a scale vastly larger. 

It is almost unpardonable in the conductors of these institutions, 
not to have foreseen the consequences which have resulted from 
the course pursued by them. They were all plain and visible. If 
they have any apology, it is, that they were no blinder than the 
government, and that they yielded to those who would take no de- 
nial. It will be altogether unpardonable in us, if with this, as well 
as all other experience before us, we continue to pursue a system 
which must inevitably lead us through depreciation of currency, 
paper-money, tender-laws, and all the contemptible and miserable 
contrivances of disordered finance and national insolvency, to com- 
plete and entire bankruptcy in the end. 

I hope the House will recommit the bill for amendment. 



SPEECH 



ON A RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE MORE EFFECTUAL COLLEC- 
TION OF THE PUBLIC REVENUE, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF 
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, 1816. 



The disordered state, in wliicli the Currency of tlie country was left by the late war, is 
well known. Witli a view to con-ect the evil, Mr. Webster moved the following Resolution, 
in the House of Representatives. It passed both Houses, and was attentled with complete 
Sttccess, in its operation. 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of Treasury be, and he hereby is, 
retjuired and directed to adopt such measures as he may ileem necessaiy, to cause, as soon 
as may be, all duties, taxes, debts, or sums of money, accruing or becoming payable to the 
United States, to be collected and paid in the legal currency of the United States, or Treas- 
ury notes, or notes of the Bank of the United States, as by law provided and declared, or 
in notes of Banks which are payable and paid on demand, in the said legal currency of the 
United States ; and that, from and after the twentietli day of February next, no such duties, 
taxes, debts, or sums of money, accruing or becoming payable to the United States, as 
aforesaid, ought to be collected or received otherwise than in tlie legal currency of the Uni- 
ted States, or Treasury notes, or notes of the Bank of the United State, or in notes of Banks 
which are payable and paid on demand, in the said legal currency of the United States. — 
Approved, April 30, 1816. 

The Resolution was introduced by the following Speech. 

Mr. Webster said, that he had felt it to be his duty to call the 
attention of the House once more to the subject of the collection 
of the revenue, and to present the resolutions which had been sub- 
mitted. He had been the more inclined to do this from an appre- 
hension that the rejection, yesterday, of the bill which had been in- 
troduced, might be construed into an abandonment, on the part of 
the House, of all hope of remedying the existing evil. He had had, 
it was true, some objections against proceeding by way of bill ; be- 
cause the case wils not one in which the law was deficient, but one 
in which the execution of the law was deficient. The great object, 
however, was to obtain a decision of this and the other House, that 
the present mode of receiving the revenue should not be continued; 
and as this might be substantially efiected by the bill, he had hoped 
thai it miglit pass. Tiiis hope had been disappomted. The bill had 
been rejected. The House had put its negative upon the only propo- 



233 

sition which had been submitted to it, for correcting a state of things, 
which everybody knows to exist in plain violation of the constitu- 
tion, and in open defiance of the written letter of the law. For one, 
he could never consent to adjourn, leaving this implied sanction of 
the House upon all that had taken place, and all that might hereafter 
take place. He hoped not to hear again that there was not now 
time to act on this question. If other gentlemen considered the 
question as important as he did, they would not forbear to act on 
it from any desire, however strong, to bring the session to an early 
close. 

The situation of the country, said Mr. Webster, in regard to col- 
lection of its revenues is most deplorable. With a perfectly sound 
legal currency, the national revenues are not collected in this cur- 
rency, but in paper of various sorts, and various degrees of value. 
The origin and progress of this evil is distinctly known, but it is 
not easy to see hs duration or its future extent, if an adequate rem- 
edy be not soon found. Before the war, the business of the country 
was conducted principally by means of the paper of the different 
state banks. As these were in good credit, and paid their notes in 
gold and silver on demand, no great evil was experienced from the 
circulation of their paper. Not being, however, a part of the legal 
money of the country, it could not, by law, be received in the pay- 
ment of duties, taxes or other debts to government. But being 
payable, and hitherto, regularly paid, on demand, the collectors and 
agents of government had generally received it as cash; it had been 
deposited as cash in the banks which received the deposits of gov- 
ernment, and from them it had been drawn as cash, and paid off to 
creditors of the public. 

During the war, this state of things changed. Many of the banks 
had been induced to make loans to a very great amount to govern- 
ment. These loans were made by an issue of their own bills. This 
proceeding threw into circulation an immense quantity of bank pa- 
per, in no degree corresponding with the mercantile business of the 
country, and resting on nothing for its payment and redemption, but 
the government stocks, which were holden by the banks. The con- 
sequence immediately followed, which it would be imputing a great 
degree of blindness both to the government and to the banks to sug- 
gest that they had not foreseen. The excess of paper which was 
found everywhere, created alarm. Demands began to be made Qn 
the banks, and they all stopped payment. No contrivance to get 
money without inconvenience to the people, ever had a shorter 
course of experiment, or a more unequivocal termination. The 
depreciation of bank notes was the necessary consequence of a 
neglect or refusal on the part of those who issued them to pay them. 
It took place immediately, and has continued, with occasional fluc- 
tuations in the depression, to the present moment. What still far- 
ther increases the evil is, that this bank paper being the issue of 
very many insthutions, situated in different parts of the country, and 
possessing different degrees of credit, the depreciation has not been, 
and IS not now, unitbrm throughout the United States. It is not 
the same at Baltimore as at Philadelphia, nor the same at Philadel- 
phia as at New York. In New England, the banks have not stop- 
30 ° ' ^# ^ 



234 

ped payment in specie, and of course their paper has not been de- 
pressed at all. But the notes of banks which have ceased to pay 
specie, have, nevertheless, been, and still are, received for duties 
and taxes, in the places where such banks exist. The consequence 
of all this is, that the people of the United States pay their duties 
and taxes in currencies of different values, in different places. In 
other words, taxes and duties are higher in some places than they 
are in others, by as much as the value of gold and silver is greater than 
the value of the several descriptions of bank paper which are re- 
ceived by government. This difterence in relation to the paper of 
the District where we now are, is twenty-five per cent. Taxes and 
duties, therefore, collected in Massachusetts, are one quarter higher 
than the taxes and duties which are collected, by virtue of the same 
laws, in the District of Columbia. 

By the constitution of the government, it is certain that all duties, 
taxes and excises ought to be uniform throughout the United States; 
and that no preference should be given, by any regulation of com- 
merce or revenue, to the ports of one state over those of another. 
This constitutional provision, it is obvious, is flagrantly violated. 
Duties and taxes are not uniform. They are higher in some places 
than in others. A citizen of New England pays his taxes in gold 
and silver, or their equivalent. From his hand the collector will 
not receive, and is instructed by government not to receive, the 
notes of the banks which do not pay their notes on demand, and 
which notes he could obtain twenty or twenty-live per cent, cheaper 
than that which is demanded of him. Yet a citizen of the mid- 
dle states pays his taxes in these notes at par. Can a great- 
er injustice than this be conceived } Can constitutional provisions 
be disregarded in a more essential point ^ Commercial preferences 
also are given, which, if they could be continued, would be sufficient 
to annihilate the commerce of some cities and some states, while 
they would extremely promote that of others. The importing mer- 
chant of Boston pays the duties upon his goods, either in specie or 
cash notes, which are at least twenty per cent, or in treasury notes 
which are ten per cent, more valuable than the notes which are paid 
for duties, at par, by the importing merchant at Baltimore. Surely 
this is not to be endured. Such monstrous inequality and inju.stice 
are not to be tolerated. Since the commencement of this course 
of things, it can be shown, that the people of the northern states 
have paid a million of dollars more than their just proportion of the 
public burdens. A similar inequality, though somewhat less in de- 
gree, has fallen upon the states south of the Potomac, in which the 
paper in circulation, although not equivalent to specie, is yet of 
higher value than the bank notes of this District, Maryland and the 
middle states. 

But it is not merely the inequality and injustice of this system, 
if system it may be called, if not rather the want of all system, that 
call for reform. It throws the whole revenue into derangement, and 
endless confusion. It prevents the possibility of order, method or 
certainty in the public receipts or disbursements. This mass of de- 
pressed paper, thrown out at Hrst in loans to accommodate govern- 
ment, has done little else than to embarrass and distress government 



233 

It can hardly be said to circulate, but it lies in the channel of circula- 
tion, and chokes it up by its bulk and its sluggishness. In a great 
proportion of the country, the dues are not paid, or are badly paid; 
and in an equal portion of the country the public creditors are not 
paid, or are paid badly. 

It is quite clear, that by the statute all duties and taxes are re- 
quired to be paid in the legal money of the United States, or in 
treasury notes, agreeably to recent provisions. It is just as clear, 
that the law has been disregarded, and that the notes of banks of 
an hundred different descriptions, and almost as many different val- 
ues, have been received, and still are received, where the statute 
requires legal money or treasury notes to be paid. 

In tiiese circumstances, I cannot persuade myself that congress 
will adjourn, without attempting something by way of remedy. In 
my opinion, no greater evil has threatened us. Nothing can more 
endanger, either the existence and preservation of the public reve- 
nue, or the security of private property, than the consequences 
which are to be apprehended from the present course of things, if 
they be not arrested by a timely and an effectual interference. Let 
gentlemen consider what will probably happen, if congress should 
rise without the adoption of any measure on the subject. 

Virginia, having passed a law for compelling the banks in that 
state to limit the circulation of their paper and resume specie pay- 
ments by the autumn, Vill, doubtless, repeal it. The states further 
to the south will probably fall into a similar relaxation, for it is hard- 
ly to be expected that they will have firmness and perseverance 
enough, to persist in their present most prudent and commendable 
course, without the countenance of the general government. 

If in addition to these events, an abandonment of the wholesome 
system, which has thus far prevailed in the northern states, or any 
relaxation of that system should take place, the government is in 
danger of falling into that condition, from which it can hardly be 
able to extricate itself for twenty years, if indeed it shall ever be 
able to extricate itself; and if that state of things, instead of being 
changed by the government, shall not change the government. 

It is our business to foresee this danger, and to avoid it. There 
are some political evils which are seen as soon as they are dangerous, 
and which alarm at once as well the people as the government. Wars 
and invasions therefore are not always the most certain destroyers 
of national prosperity. They come in no questionable shape. They 
announce their own approach, and the general security is preserved 
by the general alarm. Not so with the evils of a debased coin, a 
depreciated paper currency, or a depressed and falling public credit. 
Not so with the plausible and insidious mischiefs of a paper money 
system. These insinuate themselves in the shape of facilities, ac- 
commodation, and relief. They hold out the most fallacious hope of 
an easy payment of debts, and a lighter burden of taxation. It is 
easy for a portion of the people to imagine that government may 
properly continue to receive depreciated paper, because they have 
received it, and because it is more convenient to obtain it than to ob- 
tain other paper, or specie. But on these subjects it is, that govern- 
ment ought to exercise its own peculiar wisdom and caution. It is 



236 

supposed to possess on subjects of this nature, somewhat more of 
foresight than has fallen to the lot of individuals. It is bound to 
foresee the evil before every man feels it, and to take all necessary 
measures to guard against it, aUhough they may be measures at- 
tended with some difficulty and not without temporary inconvenience. 
In my humble judgment, the evil demands the immediate attention 
of congress. It is not certain, and in my opinion not probable, that 
it will ever cure itself. It is more likely to grow by indulgence, 
while the remedy which must in the end be apphed, will become 
less efficacious by delay. 

The only power which the general government possesses of restrain- 
ing, the issues of the state banks, is to refuse their notes in the receipts' 
of the treasury. This power it can exercise now, or at least it can 
provide now for exercising in reasonable time, because the currency 
of some part of the country is yet sound, and the evil is not univer- 
sal. If it should become universal, who, that hesitates now, will 
then propose any adequate means of relief.^ If a measure, like the 
bill of yesterday, or the resolutions of to day, can hardly pass here 
now, what hope is there that any efficient measure will be adopted 
hereafter t 

The conduct of the treasury department in receiving the notes of 
the banks, after they had suspended payment, might, or might not, 
have been excused by the necessity of the case. That is not now 
the subject of inquny. I wish such inquiry had been instituted. 
It ought to have been. It is of dangerous consequence to permit 
plain omissions to execute the law to pass off, under any circumstance, 
without inquiry. It would probably be easier to prove, that the 
treasury must have continued to receive such notes, or that all pay- 
ments to government would have been suspended, than it would be to 
justify the previous negotiations of great loans at the banks, which 
was a voluntary transaction, induced by no particular necessity, and 
which is nevertheless, beyond doubt, the principal cause of their 
present condition. But I have expressed my belief on more than 
one occasion, and I repeat the opinion, that it was the duty, and in 
the power of the secretary of the treasury, on the return of peace, to 
have returned to the legal and proper mode of collecting the revenue. 
The paper of the banks, rose, on that occasion, almost to an equahty ' 
with specie; that was the favorable moment. The banks in which 
the public money was deposited ought to have been induced to lead 
the way, by the sale of their government stocks, and other measures 
calculated to bring about, moderately and gradually, but regularly and 
certainly, the restoration of the former and only safe state of things. 
It can hardly be doubted, that the influence of the treasury could 
have effected all this. If not, it could have withdrawn the deposits 
and countenance of government from institutions, which, against all 
rule and all propriety, were holding great sums in government stocks, 
and making enormous profits from the circulation of their own dishon- 
ored paper. That which was most wanted, was the designation of a 
time, for the corresponding operation of bunks in diilerent places. 
This could have been made by the head of the treasury, better than 
by anybody or everybody else. But the occasion was suffered to 
pass by unimproved, and the credit of the banks soon fell again, 



237 

when it was found they used none of the means which the opportu- 
nity gave themselves for enabling them to fulfil their engagements. 

As to any power of compulsion to be exercised over the state 
banks, they are not subject to the direct control of general govern- 
ment. It is for the state authorities which created them to decide, 
whether they have acted according to their charters, and if not, what 
shall be the remedy for their irregularities. But from such of them 
as continued to receive deposits of public money, government had 
a right to expect that they would conduct their concerns according 
to the safe and well known principles which should properly gov- 
ern such institutions. It is bound also to collect its taxes of the 
people on a uniform system. These rights and these duties are too 
important to be surrendered to the accommodation of any particular 
interest or any temporary purpose. 

The resolutions before the House take no notice of the state banks. 
They express neither praise nor censure of them. They neither 
commend for their patriotism in the loans made to government, nor 
propose to tax them for their neglect or refusal to pay their debts. 
They assume no power of interfering with these institutions. They 
say not one word about compelling them to resume their payments; 
they leave that to the consideration of the banks themselves, or to 
those who have a right to call them to account for any misconduct in 
that respect. But the resolutions declare that taxes ought to be 
equal; that preferences ought not to be given; that the revenues 
of the country ought not to be diminished in amount, nor hazarded 
altogether by the receipt of varying and uncertain paper; and that 
the present state of things, in which all these unconstitutional, ille- 
gal and dangerous ingredients are mixed, ought not to exist. 

It has been said that these resolutions may be construed into a 
justiHcation of the past conduct of the treasury department. Such 
an objection has been anticipated. It was made, in my opinion, 
with much more justice to the bill rejected yesterday, and a provis- 
ion was accordingly subsequently introduced into that bill to exclude 
such an interference. This is certainly not the time to express any 
justification or approbation of the conduct of that department on 
this subject, and I trust these resolutions do not imply it — Nor do 
the resolutions propose to express any censure. A sufficient rea- 
son for declining to do either, is, that the facts are not sufficiently 
known. What loss has actually happened, what amount, it is said 
to be large, may be now in the treasury, in notes which will not 
pa.ss, or under what circumstances these were received, is not now 
sufficiently ascertained. 

But before these resolutions are rejected, on the ground that they 
may shield the treasury department from responsibility, it ought to 
be clearly shown that they are capable of such a construction 
The mere passing of any resolution cannot have that effect. A dec- 
laration of what ought to be done, does not necessarily imply any 
sanction of what has been done. It may sometimes imply the con- 
trary. These resolutions cannot be made to imply any more than 
this, that the financial affairs of the country are in such a condition, 
that the revenue cannot be instantly collected in legal currency. 
This they do imply, and this I suppose almost all admit to be true, 



238 

An instantaneous execution of the law, without warning or notice, 
could in my opinion produce nothing in a portion of the country, 
but an entire suspension of payments. 

But to whose fault it is owing, that the affairs of the country are 
reduced to this condition, they do not declare. They do not pre- 
vent, or in any degree embarrass, future inquiry on that subject. 
They speak to the fact, that the finances are deranged. They say, 
also, that reformation, though it must be gradual, ought to be imme- 
diately begun, and to be carried to perfection in the shortest time prac- 
ticable. They cannot by any fair construction, be made to express 
the approbation of congress on the past conduct of any high officer 
of government; and if the time shall ever come, when this House 
shall deem investigation necessary, it must be a case of very un- 
promising aspect, and of most fearful issue, which shall afford no 
other hope of escape than by setting up these resolutions by way of 
bar to an inquiry. 

Nor is it any objection to this measure that inquiry has not first 
been had. Two duties may be supposed to have rested on the House : 
the one, to inquire into the origin of the e^il, if it needed inquiry, 
and the other to find and apply the remedy. Because one of these 
duties has not hitherto been discharged, is no reason why the other 
should be longer neglected. While we are deciding which to do first, 
the time of the session is going by us, and neither may be done. 
In the meantime public mischiefs, of unknown magnitude and in- 
■ calculable duration, threaten the country. I see no equivalent, no 
consolation, no mitigation, for these evils, in the future responsibili- 
ty of departments. Let gentlemen show me any responsibility which 
will not be a name and a mockery. If, when we meet here again, 
it shall be found that all the barriers which have hitherto, in any 
degree, restrained the emissions of a mere paper money of the worst 
sort, have given way, and that the floods have broken in upon us and 
come over us : if it shall be found that revenues have failed — that 
the public credit, now a little propped and supported by a state of 
peace and commerce, has again tottered and fallen to the ground, 
and that all the operations of government are at a stand, what then 
will be the value of the responsibility of departments? How great 
then the value of inquiry, when the evil is past prevention, when of- 
ficers may have gone out of place, and when, indeed, the whole ad- 
y ministration will necessarily be dissolving, by the expiration of the 
term for which the chief executive magistrate was chosen.'' 

I cannot consent to take the chance of the greatest public mis- 
chiefs upon a reliance on any such responsibility. The stakes are 
too unequal. 

As to the opinion advanced by some, that the object, of the reso- 
lution cannot, in any way, be answered — that the revenues cannot be 
collected, otherwise than as they are now, in the paper of any and 
every banking association which chooses to issue paper, it cannot 
for a moment be admitted. This would be at once giving up the 
government; for what is government without revenue, and what is a 
revenue that is gathered together in the varying, fluctuating, dis- 
credited, depreciated, and still falling promissory notes of two or three 
hundred distinct, and, as to this government, irresponsible banking 



239' 

companies. If it cannot collect its revenues in a better manner than 
this, it must cease to be a government. This thing; therefore is to 
be done; at any rate it is to be attempted. That it will be accom- 
plished by the treasury department, without the interference of con- 
gress, I have no belief. If from that source no reformation came, 
when reformation was easy, it is not now to be expected. Especially 
after the vote of yesterday, those whose interest it is to continue the 
present state of things, will arm themselves with the authority of 
Congress. They will justify themselves by the decision of this 
House. They will say, and say truly, that this House, having taken 
up the subject and discussed it, has not thought fit so much as to 
declare, that it is expedient ever to relieve the country or its reve- 
nues from a paper money system. Whoever believes that the treas- 
ury department will oppose this tide, aided, as it will be, by strong 
feeling and great interest, has more faith in that department than has 
fallen to my lot. It is the duty of this House to interfere with its 
own authority. Having taxed the people with no light hand, it is 
now its duty to take care that the people do not sustain these bur- 
dens in vain. The taxes are not borne without feeling. They will 
not be borne without complaint, if, by mismanagement in collection, 
their utility to government should be lost, and they should get into 
the treasury at last only in discredited and useless paper. 

A bank of thirty-five millions has been created for the professed 
purpose of correcting the evils of our circulation, and facilitating 
the receipts and expenditures of government. I am not so sanguine 
in the hope of great benefit from this measure as others are. But 
the treasury is also authorised to issue twenty-five millions of treas- 
ury notes, eighteen or twenty millions of which remain yet to be is- 
sued, and which are also allowed by law to be received on duties and 
taxes. In addition to these is the coin which is in the country, and 
which is sure to come forth into circulation whenever there is a de- 
mand for it. These means, if wisely and skilfully administered, 
are sufficient to prevent any particular pressure or great incon- 
venience, in returning to the legal mode of collecting the revenue. 
It is true, it may be easier for the people in the states in which the 
depreciated paper exists to pay their taxes in such paper, than in 
the legal currency of treasury notes, because they can get it cheap- 
er. But this is only saying that it is easier to pay a small tax, than 
to pay a large one: or that money costs more than that which is less 
valuable than money: a proposition not to be disputed. But a medi- 
um of payment, convenient for the people and safe for the govern- 
ment will be furnished, and may everywhere be obtained for a rea- 
sonable price. This is all that can justly be expected of congress. 
Having provided this, they ought to require all parts of the country 
to conform to the same measure of justice. If taxes be not neces- 
sary they should not be laid. If laid, they ought to be collected 
without preference or partiality. 

But while some gentlemen oppose the resolutions because they 
fix a day too near, others think they fix a day too distant. In my 
own judgment, it is not so material what the time is, as it is to fix a 
time. Tiie great object is to settle the question, that our legal cur- 
rency is to be preserved, and that we are not about to embark on the 



' 240 

ocean of paper money. The state banks, if they consult their own 
interest, or the interest of the community, will dispose of their gov- 
ernment stocks, and prepare themselves to redeem their paper and 
fultil their contracts. If they should not adopt this course, there 
will be time for the people to be informed that the paper of such 
institutions will not answer the demands of government, and that 
duties and taxes must be paid in the manner provided by law. 

I cannot say, indeed, that this measure will certainly produce the 
desired effect. It may fail. Its success, as is obvious, must essen- 
tially depend on the course pursued by the treasury department. 
But its tendency, I think, will be to produce good. It will, I hope, 
be a proof that congress is not regardless of its duty. It will be 
evidence that this great subject has not passed without notice. It 
will record our determination to resist the introduction of a most de- 
structive and miserable policy into our system; and if there be any 
sanction or authority in the constitution and the law; if there be any 
regard for justice and equality: if there be any care for the national 
revenue, or any concern for the public interest, let gentlemen con- 
sider whether they will relinquish their seat here, before this or some 
other measure be adopted. 



SPEECH 

ON THE GREEK REVOLUTION, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRi! 
SENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, JAN. 19, 1823. 

On the 8th of December, 1823, Mr, Webster presented, in die House of Representatives, 
the following resolution : 

" Resolved, Th;it provision ought to be made, by law, for defraying the expense incident 
to the appointment of an Agent or Commissioner to Greece, whenever the President shall 
deem it expedient to make such appointment." 

The House having, on the 19th of January, resolved itself into a-C6mmittee of the Whole, 
and this resolution being taken into consideration, Mr. Webster spoke to the following 
effect : • 

I AM afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, so far as my part in this discus- 
sion IS concerned, those expectations which the public excitement, 
existing on the subject, and certain associations, easily suggested by 
it, have conspired to raise, may be disappointed. An occasion which 
calls the attention to a spot, so distinguished, so connected with in- 
teresting recollections, as Greece, may naturally create something 
of warmth and enthusiasm. In a grave, political discussion, how- 
ever, it is necessary that that feeling should be chastised. I shall en- 
deavour properly to repress it, although it is impossible that it should 
be altogether extinguished. We must, indeed, fly beyond the civil- 
ized world, we must pass the dominion of law, and the boundaries 
of knowledge; we must, more especially, withdraw ourselves from 
this place, and the scenes and objects which here surround us, if we 
would separate ourselves, entirely, from the influence of all those 
memorials of herself which ancient Greece has transmitted for the 
admiration, and the benefit, of mankind. This free form of govern- 
ment, this popular assembly, the common council, held for the com- 
mon good, where have we contemplated its earliest models? This 
practice of free debate, and public discussion, the contest of mind 
with mind, and that popular eloquence, which, if it were now here, 
on a subject like this, would move the stones of the Capitol, — whose 
was the language in which all these were first exhibited? Even the 
Edifice in which we assemble, these proportioned columns, this or- 
namented architecture, all remind us that Greece has existed, and 
that we, like the rest of mankind, are greatly her debtors. But I 
have not introduced this motion in the vain hope of discharging any- 
thing of this accumulated debt of centuries. I have not acted upon 
the expectation, that we, who have inherited this obligation from 
31 w 



242 

our ancestors, should now attempt to pay it, to those who may seem 
to have inherited, from ihcir ancestors, a right in receive payment. 
My object is nearer and more immediate. I wish to take occasion 
of the strugcjle of an interesting and gallant people, in the cause of 
liberty and Christianity, to draw the attention of the House to the 
circumstances which have accompanied that struggle, and to the 
principles which appear to have governed the conduct of the great 
States of Europe, in regard to it; and to the effects and consequen- 
ces of these principles, upon the independence of nations, and es- 
pecially upon the institutions of free governments. What I have to 
say of Greece, therefore, concerns the modern, not the ancient; the 
living, and not the dead. It regards her, not as she exists in his- 
tory, triumphant over time, and tyranny, and ignorance; but as she 
now is, contending, against fearful odds, for being, and for the com- 
mon privilege of human nature. 

As it is never difficult to recite commonplace remarks, and trite 
aphorisms; so it may be easy, I am aware, on this occasion, to re- 
mind me of the wisdom which dictates t^x men a care of their own 
affairs, and admonishes them, instead of searching for adventures 
abroad, to leave other men's concerns in their own hands. It may 
be easy to call thiafc-esolution Qiiixolic^ the emanation of a crusading 
or propagandist spirit. All this, and more, may be readily said; but 
all this, and more, will not be allowed to fix a character upon this 
proceeding, until that is proved, which it takes for granted. Let it 
first be slioini, that, in this question, there is nothing which can af- 
fect the interest, the character, or the duty of this country. Let it 
be proved, that we are not called upon, by either of these consider- 
ations, to express an opinion on the subject to which the resolution 
relates. Let this be proved, and then it will, indeed, be made out, 
that neither ought this resolution to pass, nor ought the subject of 
it to have been mentioned in the communication of the President to 
us. But, in my opinion, this cannot be shown. In my judgment, 
the subject is interesting to the people and the government of this 
country, and we are called upon, by considerations of great weight 
and moment, to express our opinions upon it. These considerations, 
I think, spring from a sense of our own duty, our character, and our 
own interest. I wish to treat the subject on such grounds, exclu- 
sively, as are truly Jimerican; but then, in considering it as an Ameri- 
can question, I cannot forget the age in which we live, the prevail- 
ing spirit of the age, the interesting questions which agitate it, and 
our own peculiar relation, in regard to these interesting questions. 
Let this be, then, and as far as I am concerned, I hope it will be, 
purely an American discussion; but let it embrace, nevertheless, 
everything that fairly concerns America; let it comprehend, not 
merely her present advantage, but her permanent interest, her ele- 
vated character, as one of the free states of the world, and her duty 
towards those great principles, which have hitlierto maintained the 
relative independence of nations, and which have, more especially, 
made her what she is. 

At the connnencement of the session, the President, in the dis- 
charge of the high duties of his office, called our attention to the 
subject, to which this resolution refers. " A strong hope," says 



243 

that communication, " has been long entertained, founded on the 
heroic struggle ot" the Greeks, that they would succeed in their 
contest, and resume their equal station among the nations of the 
earth. It is believed that the whole civilized world takes a deep 
interest in their welfare. Although no power has declared in their 
favor, yet none, according to our information, has taken part against 
them. Their cause and their name, have protected them from dan- 
gers, which might, ere this, have overwhelmed any other people. 
The ordinary calculations of interest, and of acquisition with a view 
to aggrandizement, which mingle so much in the transactions of na- 
tions, seem to have had no efiect in regard to them. From the facts 
which have come to our knowledge, there is good cause to believe 
that their enemy has lost, forever, all dominion over them: that 
Greece will become again an independent nation." 

It has appeared to me, that the House should adopt some resolution, 
reciprocating these sentiments, so far as it should approve them. 
More than twenty years have elapsed, since Congress trrst ceased to 
receive such a communication from the President, as could properly 
be made the subject of a general answer. I do not mean to find 
fault with this relinquishment of a former, and an ancient practice. 
It may have been attended with inconveniences which justified its 
abolition. But, certainly, there was one advantage belonging to it; 
and that is, that it furnished a fit opportunity for the expression of 
the opinion of the Houses of Congress, upon those topics in the 
Executive communication, which were not expected to be made the 
immediate subjects of direct legislation. Since, therefore, the 
President's message does not now receive a general answer, it has 
seemed to me to be proper, that in some mode, agreeable to our own 
usual form of proceeding, we should express our sentiments upon 
the important and interesting topics on which it treats. 

If the sentiments of the message in respect to Greece be proper, 
it is equally proper that this House should reciprocate those senti- 
ments. The present resolution is designed to have that extent, and 
no more. If it pass, it will leave any future proceeding where it 
now is, in the discretion of the Executive Goverimient. It is but 
an expression, under those forms in which the House is accustomed 
to act, of the satisfaction of the House with the general sentiments 
expressed in regard to this subject in the message, and of its readi- 
ness to defray the expense incident to any inquiry for the purpose 
of further information, or any other agency which the President, in 
his discretion, shall see fit, in whatever manner, and at whatever 
time, to institute. The whole matter is still left in his judgment, 
and this resolution can in no way restrain its unlimited exercise. 

I might well, Mr. Chairman, avoid the responsibility of this mea- 
sure, if it had, in my judgment, any tendency to change the policy 
of the country. With the general course of that policy, I am quite 
satisfied. The nation is prosperous, peaceful, and happy; and I 
should very reluctantly put its peace, prosperity, or happiness, at 
risk. It appears to me, however, that this resolution is strictly con- 
formable to our general policy, and not only consistent with our in- 
terests, but even demanded by a large and liberal view of those 
interests. 



244 

,( , .^ 

It is certainly true, that the just policy of this country, is, in the 
first place, a peaceful policy. No nation ever had less to expect 
from forcible aggrandizement. The mighty agents which are work- 
ing out our greatness, are time, industry, and the arts. Our aug- 
mentation is by growth, not by acquisition; by internal developement, 
not by external accession. No schemes can be suggested to us, so 
magnificent as the prospects which a sober contemplation of our 
own condition, unaided by projects, uninfluenced by ambition, fair- 
ly spreads before us. A country of such vast extent, with such 
varieties of soil and climate; with so much public spirit and private 
enterprise; with a population incf easing so much beyond former ex- 
amples, with capacities of improvement not only unapplied or unex- 
hausted, but even, in a great measure, as yet, unexplored; so free in 
its institutions, so mild in its laws, so secure in the title it confers on 
every man to his own acquisitions; needs nothing but time and peace 
to carry it forward to almost any point of advancement. 

In the next place, I take it for granted, that the policy of this 
country, springing from the nature of our government, and the spirit 
of all our institutions, is, so far as it respects the interesting ques- 
tions which agitate the present age, on the side of liberal and en- 
lightened sentiments. The age is extraordinary; the spirit that ac- 
tuates it, is peculiar and marked; and our own relation to the times 
we live in, and to the questions which interest them, is equally 
marked and peculiar. We are placed,, by our good fortune, and the 
wisdom and valor of our ancestors, in a condition in which we can 
act no obscure part. Be it for honor, or be it for dishonor, what- 
ever we do, is not likely to escape the observation of the world. As 
one of the free states among the nations, as a great and rapidly 
rising republic, it would be impossible for us, if we were so dis- 
posed, to prevent our principles, our sentiments, and our example, 
from producing some effect upon the opinions and hopes of society 
throughout the civilized world. It rests probably with ourselves to 
determine, whether the influence of these shall be salutary or per- 
nicious. 

It cannot be denied that the great political question of this age, 
is that between absolute and regulated governments. The sub- 
stance of the controversy is, whether society shall have any part in 
its own government. Whether the form of government shall be 
that of limited monarchy, with more or less mixture of hereditary 
power, or wholly elective, or representative, may perhaps be con- 
sidered as subordinate. The main controversy is between that 
absolute rule, which, while it promises to govern well, means never- 
theless to govern without control, and that regulated or constitution- 
al system, which restrains sovereign discretion, and asserts that 
society may claim, as matter of right, some effective power in the 
establishment of the laws which are to regulate it. The spirit of 
the times sets with a most powerful current, in favor of these 
last mentioned opinions. It is opposed, however, whenever and 
wherever it shows itself, by certain of the great potentates of 
Europe; and it is opposed on grounds as applicable in one civilized 
nation as in another, and which would justify such opposition in re- 
lation to the United States, as well as in relation to any other state, 



245 

or nation, if time and circumstance should render such opposition 
expedient. 

What part it becomes this country to take on a question of this 
sort, so far as it is called upon to take any part, cannot be doubtful 
Our side of this question is settled for us, even without our own 
volition. Our history, our situation, our character, necessarily de- 
cide our position and our course, before we have even time to ask 
whether we have an option. Our place is on the side of free in- 
stitutions. From the earliest settlement of these states, their in- 
habitants were accustomed, in a greater or less degree, to the 
enjoyment of the powers of self-government; and for the last half 
century, they have sustained systems of government entirely repre- 
sentative, yielding to themselves the greatest possible prosperity, 
and not leaving them without distinction and respect among the 
nations of the earth. This system we are not likely to abandon; 
and while we shall no farther recommend its adoption to other na- 
tions, in whole or in part, than it may recommend itself by its visi- 
ble influence on our own growth and prosperity, we are, neverthe- 
less, interested, to resist the establishment of doctrines which deny 
the legality of its foundations. We stand as an equal among 
nations, claiming the full benefit of the established international 
law; and it is our duty to oppose, from the earliest to the latest 
moment, any innovations upon that code, which shall bring into 
doubt or question our own equal and independent rights. 

I will now, Mr. Chairman, advert to those pretensions, put forth 
by the Allied Sovereigns of continental Europe, which seem to me 
calculated, if unresisted, to bring into disrepute the principles of our 
government, and indeed to be wholly incompatible with any degree 
of national independence. I do not introduce these considerations 
for the sake of topics. I am not about to declaim against crowned 
heads, nor to quarrel with any country for preferring a form of gov- 
ernment different from our own. The choice that we exercise for 
ourselves, I am quite willing to leave also to others. But it appears 
to me that the pretensions of which I have spoken, are wholly incon- 
sistent with the independence of nations generally, without regard 
to tiie question, whether their governments be absolute, monarchical 
and limited, or purely popular and representative. I have a most 
deep and thorough conviction, that a new era has arisen in the world, 
that new and dangerous combinations are taking place, promulgating 
doctriHcs, and fraught with consequences, wholly subversive, in their 
tendency, of the public law of nations, and of the general liberties 
of mankind. /Whether this be so, or not, is the question which I now 
propose to exanjine, upon such grounds of information, as the com- 
mon and public means of knowledge disclose. 

Everybody knows that, since the final restoration of the Bourbons to 
the throne of France, the continental powers have entered into sundry 
alliances, which have been made public, and have held several meet- 
ings or Congresses, at which the principles of their political conduct 
have been declared. These things must necessarily have an efiect 
upon the international law of the states of the world. If that effect 
be good, and according to the principles of that law, they deserve 
to be applauded. If, on the contrary, their effect and tendency be 



246 

rn<)st dangefoiis, their principles wholly inadmissible, their pretensions 
such as would abolish every degree of national independence, then 
they are to be resisted. 

I begin, Mr. Chairman, by drawing your attention to the treaty, 
concluded at Paris in September, 1815, between Russia, Prussia, and 
Austria, commonly called the Holy Alliance. This singular alliance 
appears to have originated with the Emperor of Russia; for we are 
informed that a draught of it was exhibited by him, personally, to a 
plenipotentiary of one of the great powers of Europe, before it was 
presented to the other sovereigns who ultimately signed it.* This 
instrument professes nothing, certainly, which is not extremely com- 
mendable and praiseworthy. It promises only that the contracting 
parties, both in relation to other states, and in regard to their own 
! ubjccts, will observe the rules of justice and Christianity. In con- 
firmation of these promises, it makes the most solemn and devout re- 
ligious invocations. Now, although such an alliance is a novelty in 
European history, the world seems to have received this treaty, upon 
its first promulgation, with general charity. It was commonly under- 
stood as little or nothing more than an expression of thanks for the 
successful termination of the momentous contest, in which those sove- 
reio-ns had been enjiao;ed. It still seems somewhat unaccountable, 
however, that these good resolutions should require to be confirmed 
by treaty. Who doubted, that these august sovereigns would treat 
each other with justice, and rule their own subjects in mercy .^ And 
what necessity was there, for a solemn stipulation by treaty, to en- 
sure the performance of that, which is no more than the ordinary 
duty of every government? It would hardly be admitted by these 
sovereigns, that, by this compact, they suppose themselves bound to 
introduce an entire change, or any change, in the course of their 
own conduct. Nothing substantially new, certainly, can be suppos- 
ed to have been intended. What principle, or what practice, there- 
fore, called for this solemn declaration of the intention of the par- 
ties to observe the rules of religion and justice? 

It is not a little remarkable, that a writer of reputation upon the 
Public Law, described, many years ago, not inaccurately, the char- 
acter of this alliance: I allude to Pufiendorff. " It seems useless," 
says he, "to frame any pacts or leagues, barely for the defence and 
support of universal peace; for, by such a league, nothing is super- 
added to the obligation of natural law, sind no agreement is made 
for the performance of anything, which the parties were not previous- 
ly bound to perform; nor is the original obligation rendered firmer or 
stronger by such an addition. Men of any tolerable culture and civ- 
ilisation, might well be ashamed of entering into any such compact, 
the conditions of which imply only that the parties concerned shall 
not offend in any clear point of duty. Besides, we should be guilty 
of great irreverence towards God, should we suppose that his injunc- 
tions had not already laid a sufficient obligation upon us to act just- 
ly, unless fve ourselves voluntarily consented to the same engage- 
ment: as if our obligation to obey his will, depended upon our own 
pleasure, 

* Vide Lord Castlereagh's Speech in the House of Commons, February 3, 1816. De- 
bates in Paiiianient, vol. 36, page 355 ; where also the Treaty may be found at length. 



247 

" If one engage to serve another, he does not set it down expiess- 
ly and particularly among the terms and conditions of the bargain, 
that he will not betray nor murder him, nor pillage nor burn his 
house. For the same reason, that would be a dishonorable engage- 
ment, in which men should bind themselves to act properly and de 
cently, and not break the peace."* 

Such were the sentiments of that eminent writer. How nearly 
he had anticipated the case of the Holy Alliance, will appear from 
comparing his observations with the preamble to that alliance, which 
is as follows: 

" In the name of the most Holy and Indivisible Trinity, their 
Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the 
Emperor of Russia," — " solemnly declare, that the present act has 
no other object than to publish, in the face of the whole world, their 
fixed resolution, both in the administration of their respective states, 
and in their political relations with every other government, to take 
for their sole guide the precepts of that holy religion, namely, the 
precepts of justice. Christian charity, and peace, which, far from 
being applicable only to private concerns, must have an immediate 
influence on the councils of princes, and guide all their steps, as 
being the only means of consolidating human institutions, and reme- 
dying their imperfections." 

This measure, however, appears principally important, as it was 
the first of a series, and was followed afterwards by others of a more 
marked and practical nature. These measures, taken together, 
profess to establish two principles, which the Allied Powers would 
enforce, as a part of the law of the civilized world; and the estab- 
lishment of which is menaced by a million and a half of bayonets. 

The first of these principles is, that all popular, or constitutional 
rights, are holden no otherwise than as grants from the crown. 
Society, upon this principle, has no rights of its own; it takes good 
government, when it gets it, as a boon and a concession, but can \ 
demand nothing. It is to live in that favor which emanates from ! 
royal authority, and if it have the misfortune to lose that favor, there (^ 
is nothing to protect it against any degree of injustice and oppres \ 
sion. It can rightfully make no endeavour for a change, by itself; ^ 
its whole privilege is to receive the favors that may be dispensed by 
the sovereign power, and all its duty is described in the single word, 
submission. This is the plain result of the principal continental state 
papers; indeed it is nearly the identical text of some of them. 
^/The Laybach circular of May, 1821, alleges, "that useful and 
necessary changes in legislation and administration, ought only to 
emanate from the free will and intelligent conviction of those whom 
God has rendered responsible for power; all that deviates from this 
line necessarily leads to disorder, commotions, and evils, far more j 
insufferable than those which they pretend to remedy. ""j" Now, sir, ■ 
this principle would carry Europe back again, at once, into the * 
middle of the dark ages. It is the old doctrine of the divine right i 
of kings, advanced now, by new advocates, and sustained by a for- 
midable array of power. That the people hold their fundamental 
privileges, as matter of concession or indulgence, from the sovereign 

* Book 2, cap. 2. t Annual Register, for 1821. 



/ 



/ 



I 248 

power, is a sentiment not easy to be diffused in this age, any farther 
I than it is enforced by the direct operation of military means. It is 
true, certainly, that some six centuries ago, the early founders of 
English liberty called the instrument which secured their rights a 
Charter; it was, indeed, a concession; they h^d obtained it, sword 
in hand, from the king; and, in many other cases, whatever was 
obtained, favorable to human rights, from the tyranny and despot- 
ism of the feudal sovereigns, was called by the names of pnvileges 
and liberties, as being matter of special favor. And, though we 
retain this lanouaf>;e at the present time, the principle itself belongs 
to ages that have long passed by us. The civilized world has done 
with the enormous faith, of many made for one. Society asserts its 
own rights, and alleges them to be original, sacred, and unalienable. 
It is not satisfied with having kind masters; it demands a participa- 
tion in its own government: and, in states much advanced in civilisa- 
tion, it urges this demand with a constancy and an energy, that 
cannot well, nor long, be resisted. There are, happily, enough of 
regulated governments in the world, and those among the most dis- 
tinguished, to operate as constant examples, and to keep alive an 
unceasing panting in the bosoms of men, for the enjoyment of similar 
free institutions. 

When the English revolution of 1688 took place, the English 
people did not content themselves with the example of Runnymede; 
they did not build their hopes upon royal charters; they did not, like 
the Laybach circular, suppose that all useful changes in constitutions 
and laws must proceed from those only whom God has rendered re- 
sponsible for power. They were somewhat better instructed in the 
principles of civil liberty, or at least they were better lovers of those 
principles, than the sovereigns of Laybach. Instead of petitioning 
for charters, they declared their rights, and, while they oflered to the 
family of Orange the crown with one hand, they held in the other 
an enumeration of those privileges which they did not profess to hold 
as favors, but which they demanded and insisted upon, as their un- 
doubted rights. 

I need not stop to observe, Mr. Chairman, how totally hostile are 
these doctrines of Laybach, to the fundamental principles of our 
government. They are in direct contradiction: the principles of 
good and evil are hardly more opposite. If these principles of the 
sovereigns be true, we are but in a state of rebellion, or of anarchy, 
and are only tolerated among civilized states, because it has not yet 
been convenient to conform us to the true standard. 
^ But the second, and, if possible, the still more objectionable prin- 
/ ciple, avowed in these papers, is the right of forcible interterence 
' in the atTairs of other states. A right to control nations in their 
desire to change their own government, wherever it may be con- 
jectured, or pretended that such change might furnish an example 
to the subjects of other states, is plainly and distinctly asserted. 
The same Congress that made the declaration at Laybach, had 
declared, before its removal from Troppau, "that the powers have 
an undoubted right to take a hostile attitude in regard to those 
states in which the overthrow of the government may operate as 
an example." 



249 

There cannot, as I think, be conceived a more flagrant violation 
of public law, or national independence, than is contained in this 
short declaration. 

No matter what be the character of the government resisted; no 
matter with what weight the foot of the oppressor bears on the neck 
of the oppressed; if he struggle, or if he complain, he sets a dan- 
gerous example of resistance, — and from that moment he becomes 
an object of hostility to the most powerful potentates of the earth. 
I want words to express my abhorrence of this abominable principle. 
I trust every enlightened man throughout the world will oppose it, 
and that, especially, those who, like ourselves, are fortunately out 
of the reach of the bayonets that enforce it, will proclaim their de- 
testation of it, in a tone both loud and decisive. The avowed object 
of such declarations is to preserve the peace of the world. But by 
what means is it proposed to preserve this peace? Simply, by 
bringing the power of all governments to bear against all subjects. 
Here is to be established a sort of double, or treble, or quadruple, 
or, for aught I know, a quintuple allegiance. An offence against 
one king is to be an offence against all kings, and the power of all 
is to be put forth for the punishment of the offender. A right to 
interfere in extreme cases, in the case of contiguous states, and 
where imminent danger is threatened to one by what is transpiring 
in another, is not without precedent in modern times, upon what has 
been called the law of vicinage; and when confined to extreme cases, 
and limited to a certain extent, it may perhaps be defended upon 
principles of necessity and self-defence. But to maintain that sove- 
reigns may go to war upon the subjects of another state to repress 
an example.) is monstrous indeed. What is to be the limit to such a 
principle, or to the practice growing out of it.'' What, in any case, 
but sovereign pleasure is to decide whether the example be good 
or bad? And what, under the operation of such rule, may be 
thought of OUR example? Why are we not as fair objects for the 
operation of the new principle, as any of those who may attempt to 
reform the condition of their government, on the other side of the 
Atlantic? / 

The ultimate effect of this alliance of sovereigns, for objects per- 
sonal to themselves, or respecting only the permanence of their own 
power, must be the destruction of all just feeling, and all natural 
sympathy, between those who exercise the power of government and 
those who are subject to it. The old channels of mutual regard and 
confidence are to be dried up, or cut off. Obedience can now be 
expected no longer than it is enforced. Instead of relying on the 
affections of the governed, sovereigns are to rely on the affections 
and friendship of other sovereigns. There are, in short, no longer 
to be nations. Princes and people no longer are to unite for inter- 
ests common to them both. There is to be an end of all patriotism, 
as a distinct national feeling. Society is to be divided horizontally; 
all sovereigns above, and all sul)jects below; the former coalescing 
for their own security, and for the more certain subjection of the 
undistinguished multitude beneath. This, sir, is no picture, drawn 
by imagination. I have hardly used language stronger than that in 
which the authors of this new system have commented on their own 
32 



/ 



i 



250 

work. Mr. Chateaubriand, in his speech in the French Chamber 

of Deputies, in February hist, dechired, that he had a conference with 

the Emperor of Russia at Verona, in which that august sovereign 

! uttered sentiments which appeared to him so precious, that he ini- 

! mediately hastened home, and wrote them down while yet fresh in 

his recollection. " Tlic Emperor declared^'''' said he, " that there can 

I no loiioer be sitch a thini:^ as an Ejiij/rs/i, French, Russian, Prussian, or 

(' jJustrian policy: there is henciforih hut one policy, which, for the safety 
of all, should be adopted both by people and kings. It was for me first 
to show mijself convinced of the principles upon which I founded the alli- 
ance; an occasion offered itself; the rising in Greece. JYothiug certainly 
could occur more for my interests, for the interests of my people; nothing 
mo7'e acceptable to my country, than a religious war in Turkey: hut I 
have thought I perceived in the troidjles of the Morea, the sign of revo- 
lution, and I have held hack. Providence has not put under my com- 
mand 800,000 soldiers, to satisfy my ambition, but to protect religioji, 
morality, and justice, and to secure the prevalence of those principles of 
order on which human society rests. It may well be permitted that kings 
may have public alliances to defend themselves against secret enemies. ^^ 
These, sir, are the words which the French minister thought so 
important as that the}^ deserved to be recorded; and I, too, sir, am 
of the same opinion. , ' But, if it be true that there is hereafter to be 
neither a Russian policy, nor a Prussian policy, nor an Austrian 
policy, nor a French policy, nor even, which yet I will not believe, 
an English policy; there will be, I trust in God, an American policy. 
I If the authority of all these governments be hereafter to be mixed 
I . and blended, and to flow in one augmented current of prerogative, 
j over the face of Europe, sweeping away all resistance in its course, 
; it will yet remain for us to secure our own happiness, by the preser- 

I vation of our own principles; which I hope we shall have the maiili- 

I ness to express on all proper occasions, and the spirit to defend in 

I every extremity. The end and scope of this amalgamated policy is 

I neither more nor less than this: — to interfere, by force, for any gov- 

I ernment, against any people who may resist it. Be the state of the 

I people what it may, they shalFnot rise; be the government what it 

' will, it shall not be opposed^ The practical commentary has cor- 

responded with the plain language of the text. Look at Spain, and 
at Greece. If men may not resist the Spanish inquisition, and the 
Turkish cimeter, what is there to which humanity must not submit? 
Stronger cases can never arise. Is it not proper for us, at all times 
— is it not our duty, at this time, to come forth, and deny, and con- 
demn, these monstrous principles. Where, but here, and in one 
i other place, are they likely to be resisted.' They are advanced with 

i equal coolness and boldness; and they are supported by immense 

\ power. The timid will shrink and give way — and many of the 

: brave may be compelled to yield to force. Human liberty may yet, 

perhaps, be obliged to repose its principal hopes on the intelligence 
and the vigor of the Saxon race. As far as depends on us, at least, 
I trust those hopes will not be disappointed; and that, to the extent 
which may consist with our own settled, pacific policy, our opinions 
and sentiments may be brought to act, on the right side, and to the 
right end, on an occasion which is, in truth, nothing less than a mo- 



251 

mentous question between an intelligent age, full of knowledge, 
thirsting for improvement, and quickened by a thousand impulses, 
on one side, and the most arbitrary pretensions, sustained by unpre- 
cedented power, on the other. 

This asserted right of forcible intervention, in the affairs of other ^ 
nations, is in open violation of the public law of the world. Who ; 
has authorised these learned doctors of Troppau, to establish new 
articles in this code? Whence are their diplomas? Is the whole 
world expected to acquiesce in principles, which entirely subvert *, 
the independence of nations? On the basis of this independence 
has been reared the beautiful fabric of international law. On the 
principle of this independence, Europe has seen a family of nations, 
flourishing within its limits, the small among the large, protected not J 
always by power, but by a principle above power, by a sense of f 
propriety and justice. On this principle the great commonwealth of / 
civilized states has been hitherto upheld. There have been occa- 
sional departures, or violations, and always disastrous, as in the case 
of Poland; but, in general, the harmony of the system has been 
wonderfully preserved. In the production and preservation of this 
sense of justice, this predominating principle, the Christian religion 
has acted a main part. Christianity and civilisation have labored 
together; it seems, indeed, to be a law of our hiunan condition, tha'. 
they can live and flourish only together. From their Idended in- 
fluence has arisen that delightful spectacle of the prevalence of rea- 
son and principle, over power and interest, so well described by one 
who was an honor to the age — 

" And sovereign Luw, the world''s collected will. 

O'er thrones and globes elate, 
SitsJ Empress — crowning good, repressing ill : 

Sinit by her sacred frown. 
The fiend. Discretion, like a vapor, sinks. 

And e'en the all-dazzling crown 
Hides Ilia faint rays, and at her bidding shrinks." 

But this vision is past. While the teachers of Laybach give the 
rule, there will be no law but the law of the strongest. 

It may now be required of me to show what interest we have, in 
resisting this new system. What is it to us, it may be asked, upon 
what principles, or what pretences, the European governments 
assert a right of interfering in tiie aflairs of their neiirhbours? The 
thunder, it may be said, rolls at a distance. The wide Atlantic is 
between us and danger; and, however others may suffer, ive shall 
remain safe. 

I think it a sufficient answer to this, to say, that we are one of 
the nations; that we have an interest, therefore, in the preservation 
of that system of national law and national intercourse, which has 
heretofore subsisted, so beneficially for all. Our system of govern- 
ment, it should also be remembered, is, throughout, founded on 
principles utterly hostile to the new code; and, if we remain undis- 
turbed by its operation, we shall owe our security, either to our sit- 
uation or our spirit. The enterprising character of the age, our 
own active commercial spirit, the gretit increase which luis taken 
place in the intercourse between civilized and commercial states, 



252 

have necessarily connected us with the nations of the earth, and 
given us a high concern in the preservation of those salutary prin- 
ciples, upon which that -intercourse is founded. We have as clear 
an interest in international law, as individuals have in the laws of 
society. 

But, apart from the soundness of the policy, on the ground of 
direct interest, we have, sir, a duty, connected with this subject, 
which, I trust, we are willing to perform. What do we not owe to 
the cause of civil and religious liberty? to the principle of lawful 
resistance ? to the principle that society has a right to partake in 
its own government.'' As the leading Republic of the world, 
living and breathing in these principles, and advanced, by their 
operation, with unequalled rapidity, in our career, shall we. give our 
consent to bring them into disrepute and disgrace ? It is neither os- 
tentation nor boasting, to say, that there lie before this country, in 
immediate prospect, a great extent and height of power. We are 
borne along towards this, without effort, and not always even with 
a full knowledge of the rapidity of our own motion. Circumstances 
which never combined before, have cooperated in our favor, and a 
mighty current is setting us forward, which we could not resist, even 
if we would, and which, while we would stop to make an observation, 
and take the sun, has set us, at the end of the operation, far in ad- 
vance of the place where we commenced it. Does it not become 
us, then, is it not a duty imposed on us, to give our weight to the 
side of liberty and justice — to let mankind know that we are not 
tu-ed of our own institutions — and to protest against the asserted 
power of altering, at pleasure, the law of the civilized world? 

But, whatever we do, in this respect, it becomes us to do upon 
clear and consistent principles. There is an important topic in the 
Message, to which I have yet hardly alluded. I mean the rumored 
combination of the European continental sovereigns, against the 
new established free states of South America. Whatever position 
this government may take on that subject, I trust it will be one 
which can be defended, on known and acknowledged grounds of 
right. The near approach, or the remote distance of danger, may 
affect policy, but cannot change principle. The same reason that 
would authorise us to protest against unwarrantable combinations 
to interfere between Spain and her former colonies, would authorise 
us equally to protest, if the same combination were directed against 
the smallest state in Europe, although our duty to ourselves, our 
policy, and wisdom, might indicate very different courses, as fit to 
be pursued by us in the two cases. We shall not, I trust, act upon 
the notion of dividing the world with the Holy Alliance, and complain 
of nothing done by them in their hemisphere, if they will not interfere 
with ours. At least this would not be such a course of policy as I 
could recommend or support. We have not offended, and, I hope, 
we do not intend to offend, in regard to South America, against any 
principle of national independence or of public law. We have done 
nothing, we shall do nothing, that we need to hush up or to com- 
promise, by forbearing to express our sympathy for the cause of 
the Greeks, or our opinion of the course which other governments 
have adopted in regard to them. 



253 

It may, in the next place, be asked, perhaps, supposing all this 
to be true, what can we do? Are we to go to war? Are we to in- 
terfere in the Greek cause, or any other European cause? Are we 
to endanger our pacific relations? — No, certainly not. What, then, 
the question recurs, remains for usl If we will not endanger our 
own peace; if we will neither furnish armies, nor navies, to the 
cause which we think the just one, what is there within our power? 
/ Sir, this reasoning mistakes the age. The time has been, indeed, 
when fleets, and armies, and subsidies, were the principal reliances 
even in the best cause. But, happily for mankind, there has arrived 
a great change in this respect. Moral causes come into consider- 
ation, in proportion as the progress of knowledge is advanced; and 
the public opinion of the civilized world is rapidly gaining an ascen- 
dency over mere brutal force. It is already able to oppose the most 
formidable obstruction to the progress of injustice and oppression; 
and, as it grows more intelligent and more intense, it will be more 
and more formidable. It may be silenced by military power, but it 
cannot be conquered. It is elastic, irrepressible, and invulnerable 
to the weapons of ordinary warfare. It is that impassable, unex 
tinguishable enemy of mere violence and arbitrary rule, which, like 
Milton's angels, 

" Vital in every part, 
Cannot, but by annihilating, die." 

Until this be propitiated or satisfied, it is vain for power to talk 
either of triumphs or of repose. No matter what fields are desola- 
ted, what fortresses surrendered, what armies subdued, or what pro- 
vinces overrun. In the history of the year that has passed by us, 
and in the instance of unhappy Spain, we have seen the vanity of all 
triumphs, in a cause which violates the general sense of justice of 
the civilized world. It is nothing, that the troops of France have 
passed from the Pyrenees to Cadiz; it is nothing that an unhappy 
and prostrate nation has fallen before them; it is nothing that arrests, 
and confiscation, and execution, sweep away the little remnant of 
national resistance. There is an enemy that still exists to check 
the glory of these triumphs. It follows the conqueror back to the 
very scene of his ovations; it calls upon him to take notice that Eu- 
rope, though silent, is yet indignant; it shows him that the sceptre 
of his victory is a barren sceptre; that it shall confer neither joy nor 
honor, but shall moulder to dry ashes in his grasp. In the midst of 
his exultation, it pierces his ear with the cry of injured justice, it 
denounces against him the indignation of an enlightened and civil- 
ized age; it turns to bitterness the cup of his rejoicing, and wounds 
him with the sting which belongs to the consciousness of having 
outraged the opinion of mankind. 

In my own opinion, sir, the Spanish nation is now nearer, not only 
m point of time, but in point of circunistance, to the acquisition of 
a regulated government, than at the moment of the French invasion. 
Nations must, no doubt, undergo these trials in their progress to the 
establishment of free institutions. The very trials benefit them, and 
render them more capable both of obtaining and of enjoying the ob- 
ject which they seek. 

X 



254 

I shall not detain the Committee, sir, by layins; before it any 
statistical, geographical, or commercial account ot" Greece. I have 
no knowledge on these subjects, which is not common to all. It is 
universally admitted, that, within the last thirty or forty years, the 
condition of Greece has been greatly improved. Her marine is at 
present respectable, containing the best sailors in the 3Iediterranean, 
better even, in that sea, than our own, as more accustomed to the long 
quarantines, and other regulations which prevail in its ports. The 
number of her seamen has been estimated as high as 50,000, but T 
suppose that estimate must be much too large. They have proba- 
bly 150,000 tons of shipping. It is not easy to state an accurate 
account of Grecian population. The Turkish government does not 
trouble itself with any of the calculations of political economy, and 
there has never been such a thing as an accurate census, probably, 
in any part of the Turkish empire. In the absence of all official 
information, private opinions widely differ. By the tables which 
have been communicated, it would seem that there are 2,400,000 
Greeks in Greece proper and the Islands; an amount, as I am in- 
clined to think, somewhat overrated. There are, probably, in the 
whole of European Turkey, 5,000,000 Greeks, and 2,000,000 more 
in the Asiatic dominions of that power. The moral and intellect- 
ual progress of this numerous population, under the horrible op- 
pression which crushes it, has been such as may well excite regard. 
Slaves, under barbarous masters, the Greeks have still aspired after 
the blessings of knowledge and civilisation. Before the breaking 
out of the present revolution, they had established schools, and 
colleges, and libraries, and the press. Wherever, as in Scio, 
owing to particular circumstances, the weight of oppression was 
mitigated, the natural vivacity of the Greeks, and their aptitude for 
the arts, were discovered. Though certainly not on an equality 
with the civilized and Christian states of Europe, and how is it pos- 
sible under such oppression as they endured that they should be? 
they yet furnished a striking contrast with their Tartar masters. 
It has been well said, that it is not easy to form a just conception 
of the nature of the despotism exercised over them. Conquest and 
subjugation, as known among European states, are inadequate 
modes of expression by which to denote the dominion of the Turks 
A conquest, in the civilized world, is generally no more than an 
acquisition of a new dominion to the conquering country. It does 
not imply a never-ending bondage imposed upon the conquered, a 
perpetual mark, and opprobrious distinction between them and their 
masters; a bitter and unending persecution of their religion; an ha- 
bitual violation of their rights of person and property, and the un- 
restrained indulgence towards them, of every passion which belongs 
to the character of a barbarous soldiery. Yet, such is the state of 
Greece. The Ottoman power over them, obtained originally by the 
sword, is constantly preserved by the same means. Wherever it 
exists, it is a mere military power. The religious and civil code of 
the state, being both fixed in the Alcoran, and equally the object of 
an ignorant and furious (aith, have been found equally incapable of 
change. " The Turk," it has been said, " has been vncatnped in 
Europe for four centuries." He has hardly any more participation 



255 

in European manners, knowledge, and arts, than when he crossed 
the Bosphorus. But this is not the worst of it. The power of the 
empire is fallen into anarchy, and as the principle which belongs to 
the head belongs also to the parts, there are as many despots as 
there are pachas, beys, and visiers. Wars are almost perpetual, 
between the sultan and some rebellious governor of a province; and 
in the conflict of these despotisms, the people are necessarily ground 
between the upper and the nether millstone. In short, the Chris- 
tian subjects of the sublime Porte, feel daily all the miseries which 
flow from despotism, from anarchy, from slavery, and from religious 
persecution. If anything yet remains to heighten such a picture, 
let it be added, that every otfice in the government is not only 
actuall}', but professedly, venal; — the pachalics, the visierates, the 
cadiships, and whatsoever other denomination may denote the de- 
positary of power. In the whole world, sir, there is no such op- 
pression /e//, as by the Christian Greeks. In various parts of India, 
to be sure, the government is bad enough; but then it is the govern- 
ment of barbarians over barbarians, and the feeliiig of oppression is, 
of course, not so keen. There the oppressed are perhaps not bet- 
ter than their oppressors; but in the case of Greece, there are mil- 
lions of Christian men, not without knowledge, not without refine- 
ment, not without a strong thirst for all the pleasures of civilized 
life, trampled into the very earth, century after century, by a pil- 
laging, savage, relentless soldiery. Sir, the case is unique. There 
exists, and has existed, nothing like it. The world has no such 
misery to show; there is no case in which Christian communities can 
be called upon, with such emphasis of appeal. 

But I have said enough, Mr. Chairman, indeed I need have said 
nothing, to satisfy the House, that it must be some new combination 
of circumstances, or new views of policy in the cabinets of Europe, 
which have caused this interesting struggle not merely to be re- 
garded with indifference, but to be marked with opprobrium. The 
very statement of the case, as a contest between the Turks and 
Greeks, sulficiently indicates what must be the feeling of every 
individual, and every governmeiit, that is not biassed by a particular 
interest, or a particular feeling, to disregard the dictates of justice 
and humanity. 

And now, sir, what has been the conduct pursued by the Allied 
Powers, in regard to this contest? When the revolution broke out, 
the sovereigns were in Congress at Lay bach; and the papers of that 
assembly sufKciently manifest their sentiments. They proclaimed 
their abhorrence of those " criminal combinations which had been 
formed in the eastern parts of Europe;" and, although it is possible 
that this denunciation was aimed, more particularly, at the distur- 
bances in the provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia, yet no excep- 
tion is made, from its general terms, in favor of those events in 
Greece, which were properly the commencement of her revolution, 
and which could not but be well known at Laybach, before the date 
of these declarations. Now it must be remembered, that Russia 
was a leading party in this denunciation of the efforts of the Greeks 
to achieve their liberation; and it cannot but be expected by Russia 
that the world shall also remember what part she herself has here- 



256 

tofore acted, in the same concern. It is notorious, that within the 
last half century she has again and again, excited the Greeks to re- 
bellion against the Porte, and that she has constantly kept alive in 
them the hope that she would, one day, by her own great power, 
break the yoke of their oppressor. Indeed, the earnest attention 
with which Russia has regarded Greece, goes much farther back 
than to the time I have mentioned. Ivan the third, in 1482, having 
espoused a Grecian princess, heiress of the last Greek emperor, 
discarded Si. George from the Russian arms, and adopted in its 
stead the Greek two-headed black eagle, which has continued in the 
Russian arms to the present day. In virtue of the same marriage, 
the Russian princes claimed the Greek throne as their inheritance. 
Under Peter the Great, the policy of Russia developed itself 
more fully. In 1696, he rendered himself master of Azoph, and in 
1698, obtained the right to pass the Dardanelles, and to maintain, 
by that route, commercial intercourse with the Mediterranean. He 
had emissaries throughout Greece, and particularly applied himself 
to gain the clergy. He adopted the Laharnm of Constantine, " In 
hoc signo vinces ;''"' and medals were struck, with the inscription, 
" Petrus I. Rtisso-Grcecorum Imperator.^^ In whatever new direction 
the principles of the Holy Alliance may now lead the politics of 
Russia, or whatever course she may suppose Christianity now pre- 
scribes to her, in regard to the Greek cause, the time has been when 
she professed to be contending for that cause, as identified with 
Christianity. The white banner under which the soldiers of Peter 
the first usually fought, bore, as its inscription, " In ihe name of the 
Prince, and for our country.'''' Relying on the aid of the Greeks, in 
his war with the Porte, he changed the white flag to red, and dis- 
played on it the words, " //i the name of God, and for Christianitij.^^ 
The unfortunate issue of this war is well known. Though Anne 
and Elizabeth, the successors of Peter, did not possess his active 
character, they kept up a constant communication with Greece, and 
held out hopes of restoring the Greek empire. Catharine the sec- 
ond, as is well known, excited a general revolt in 1769. A Russian 
fleet appeared in the Mediterranean, and a Russian army was landed 
in the Morea. The Greeks in the end were disgusted by being re- 
quired to take an oath of allegiance to Russia, and the empress was 
disgusted because they refused to take it. In 1774, peace was 
signed between Russia and the Porte, and the Greeks of the Morea 
were left to their fate. By this treaty the Porte acknowledged the 
independence of the khan of the Crimea; a preliminary step to the 
acquisition of that country by Russia. It is not unworthy of remark, 
as a circumstance which distinguished this from most other diplo- 
matic transactions, that it conceded the right to the cabinet of St 
Petersburg, of intervention in the interior affairs of Turkey, in re- 
gard to whatever concerned the religion of the Greeks. The cruel- 
ties and massacres that happened to the Greeks after the peace be- 
tween Russifi and the Porte, notwithstanding the general pardon 
which had been stipulated for them, need not now to be recited. 
Instead of retracing the deplorable picture, it is enough to say, 
that in this respect the past is justly reflected in the present. The 
empress soon after invaded and conquered the Crimea, and on one 



257 

of the gates of Kerson, its capital, caused to be inscribed, " Tlie 
road to B]jscintium.'''' The present Emperor, on his accession to the 
throne, manifested an intention to adopt the poHcy of Catharine the 
II. as his own, and the world has not been right, in all its suspicions, 
if a project for the partition of Turkey did not form a part of the 
negotiations of Napoleon and Alexander at Tilsit. 

All this course of policy seems suddenly to be changed. Turkey 
is no longer regarded, it would appear, as an object of partition or 
acquisition, and Greek revolts have, all at once, become, according 
to the declaration of Laybach, " criminal combinations." The re- 
cent congress at Verona exceeded its predecessor at Laybach, in its 
denunciations of the Greek struggle. In the circular of the 14th 
of December, 18!2!2, it declared the Grecian resistance to the Turkish 
power to be rash and culpable, and lamented that " the tirebrand of 
rebellion had been thrown into the Ottoman empire." This rebuke 
and crimination, we know to have proceeded on those settled princi- 
ples of conduct, which the continental powers had prescribed for 
themselves. The sovereigns saw, as well as others, the real condi- 
tion of the Greeks; they knew, as well as others, that it was most 
natural and most justifiable, that they should endeavour, at whatever 
hazard, to change that condition. They knew, that they, themselves, 
or at least one of them, had more than once urged the Greeks to sim- 
ilar efforts; that they, themselves, had thrown the same tirebrand into 
the midst of the Ottoman empire. And yet, so much does it seem to 
be their fixed object to discountenance whatsoever threatens to dis- 
turb the actual government of any country, that. Christians as they 
were, and allied as they professed to be, for purposes most important 
to human happiness and religion, they have not hesitated to declare 
to the world, that they have wholly forborne to exercise any com- 
passion to the Greeks, simply because they thought that they saw, in 
the struggles of the JNIorea, the sign of revolution. This, then, is 
coming to a plain, practical result. The Grecian revolution has been 
discouraged, discountenanced, and denounced, for no reason but be- 
cause il is a revolution. Independent of all inquiry into the reason- 
ableness of its causes, or the enormity of the oppression which 
produced it; regardless of the peculiar claims which Greece posses- 
ses upon the civilized world; and regardless °of what has been their 
own conduct towards her for a century; regardless of the interest of 
the Christian religion, the sovereigns at Verona seized upon the case 
of the Greek revolution, as one above all others calculated to illus- 
trate the fixed principles of their policy. The abominable rule of 
the Porte on one side, the valor and the sufferings of the Christian 
Greeks on the other, furnished a case likely to convince even an in- 
credulous world of the sincerity of the professions of the Allied 
Powers. They embraced the occasion, with apparent ardor; and 
the world, I trust, is satisfied. 

We see here, Mr. Chairman, the direct and actual application of 
that system which I have attempted to describe. We see it in the 
very case of Greece. We learn, authentically and indisputably, 
that the Allied Powers, holding that all changes in legislation and 
administration ought to proceed from kings alone, were wholly in- 
exorable to the sufferings of the Greeks, and wholly hostile to their 
33 ' X* 



258 

success Now it is upon this practical result of the principle of the 
continental powers, that I wish this House to intimate its opinion. 
The great question is a question of principle. Greece is only the 
signal instance of the application of that principle. If the principle 
be right, if we esteem it conformable to the law of nations, if we 
have nothing to say against it, or if we deem ourselves unfit to ex- 
press an opinion on the subject, then, of course, no resolution ought 
to pass. If, on the other hand, we see in the declarations of the 
Allied Powers, principles not only utterly hostile to our own free in- 
stitutions, but hostile also to the independence of all nations, and 
altogether opposed to the improvement of the condition of human 
nature; if, in the instance before us, we see a most striking exposi- 
tion and application of those principles, and if we deem our own 
opinions to be entitled to any weight in the estimation of mankind; 
then, I think, it is our duty to adopt some such measure as the pro 
posed resolution. 

It is worthy of observation, sir, that as early as July, 1821, Baron 
Strogonoff, the Russian minister at Constantinople, represented to 
the Porte, that, if the undistinguished massacres of the Greeks, 
both of such as were in open resistance, and of those who remain- 
ed patient in their submission, were continued, and should become 
a settled habit, they would give just cause of war against the Porte 
to all Christian states. This was in 1821. It was followed, early 
in the next year, by that indescribable enormity, that appalling mon- 
ument of barbarian cruelty, the destruction of Scio; a scene I shall 
not attempt to describe; a scene from which human nature shrinks 
shuddering away; a scene having hardly a parallel in the history of 
fallen man. This scene, too, was quickly followed by the massacres 
in Cyprus; and all these things were perfectly known to the Christian 
powers assembled at Verona. Yet these powers, instead of acting 
upon the case supposed by Baron Strogonoff, and which, one would 
think, had been then fully made out; instead of being moved by any 
compassion for the sufferings of the Greeks; these powers, these 
Christian powers, rebuke their gallantry, and insult their suffer- 
ings, by accusing them of " throwing a firebrand into the Ottoman 
empire." 

Such, sir, appear to me to be the principles on which the conti 
nental powers of Europe have agreed hereafter to act; and this, an 
eminent instance of the application of those principles. 

I shall not detain the Committee, Mr. Chairman, by any attempt 
to recite the events of the Greek struggle, up to the present time 
Its origin may be found, doubtless, in that improved state of know- 
ledge, which, for some years, has been gradually taking place in that 
country. The emancipation of the Greeks has been a subject fre- 
quently discussed in modern times. They themselves are represented 
as having a vivid remembrance of the distinction of their ancestors, 
not unmixed with an indignant feeling, that civilized and Christian 
Europe should not, ere now, have aided them in breaking their in- 
tolerable fetters. 

In 1816, a society was founded in Vienna, for the encouragement 
of Grecian literature. It was connected with a similar institution 
at Athens, and another in Thessaly, called the " Gymnasium of 



239 

Mount Pelion." The treasury and general office of the institution 
was established at Munich. No political object was avowed by 
these institutions, probably none contemplated. Still, however, they 
have, no doubt, had their effect in hastening that condition of things, 
in which the Greeks felt competent to the establishment of their in- 
dependence. Many young men have been, for years, annually sent 
to the universities in the western states of Europe for their education; 
and, after the general pacification of Europe, many military men, 
discharged from other employment, were ready to enter even into 
so unpromising a service as that of the revolutionary Greeks. 

In 1820, war commenced between the Porte and Ali, the well 
known pacha of Albania. Differences existed also with Persia, and 
with Russia. In this .state of things, at the beginning of 1821, an 
insurrection appears to have broken out in Moldavia, under the 
direction of Alexander Ypsilanti, a well educated soldier, who had 
been major-general in the Russian service. From his character, 
and the number of those who seemed disposed to join him, he was 
supposed to be countenanced by the court of St. Petersburg. This, 
however, was a great mistake, which the emperor, then at Laybach, 
took an early opportunity to rectify. The Porte, it would seem, 
however, alarmed at these occurrences in the northern provinces, 
caused search to be made of all vessels entering the Black Sea, lest 
arms or other military means should be sent in that manner to the 
insurgents. This proved inconvenient to the commerce of Russia, 
and caused some unsatisfactory correspondence between the two 
powers. It may be worthy of remark, as an exhibition of national 
character, that, agitated by these appearances of intestine commo- 
tion, the sultan issued a proclamation, calling on all true mussulmans 
to renounce the pleasures of social life, to prepare arms and horses, 
and to return to the manner of their ancestors, the life of the plains. 
The Turk seems to have thought that he had, at last, caught some- 
thing of the dangerous contagion of European civilisation, and that 
it waa necessary to reform his habits, by recurring to the original 
manners of military roving barbarians. 

It was about this time, that is to say, at the commencement of 
1821, that the Revolution burst out in various parts of Greece and 
the Isles. Circumstances, certainly, were not unfavorable, as one 
portion of the Turkish army was employed in the war against Ali 
Pacha in Albania, and another part in the provinces north of the 
Danube. The Greeks soon possessed themselves of the open 
country of the Morea, and drove their enemy into the fortresses. 
Of these, that of Tripolitza, with tiie city, fell into the hands of the 
Greeks, in the course of the summer. Having after these first 
movements obtained time to breathe, it became, of course, an early 
object to establish a government. For this purpose delegates of 
the people assembled, under that name which describes the assem- 
bly in which we ourselves sit, that name which " freed the Atlan- 
tic," a Congress. A writer, who undertakes to render to the civil- 
ized world that service which was once performed by Edmund 
Burke, I mean the compiler of the English Annual Register, asks, 
by what author'ihj this assembly could call itself a Congress. Simply, 
sir, by the same authority, by which the people of the United Statea 



260 

have given the same name to their own legislature. We, at least, 
should be naturally inclined to think, not only as far as names, but 
things also, are concerned, that the Greeks could hardly have be- 
gun their revolution under better auspices; since they have endeav- 
oured to render applicable to themselves the general principles of 
our form of government, as well as its name. This constitution 
went into operation at the commencement of the next year. In 
the meantime, the war with Ali Pacha was ended, he having sur- 
rendered, and being afterwards assassinated, by an instance of 
treachery and perfidy, which, if it had happened elsewhere than 
under the government of the Turks, would have deserved notice. 
The negotiation with Russia, too, took a turn unfavorable to the 
Greeks. The great point upon which Russia insisted, beside the 
abandonment of the measure of searching vessels bound to the 
Black Sea, was, that the Porte should withdraw its armies from the 
neighbourhood of the Russian frontiers; and the immediate conse- 
quence of this, when effected, was to add so much more to the dis- 
posable force, ready to be employed against the Greeks. These 
events seemed to have left the whole force of the Empire, at the 
commencement of 18'2'2, in a condition to be employed against the 
Greek rebellion; and, accordingly, very many anticipated the im- 
mediate destruction of their cause. The event, however, was or- 
dered otherwise. Where the greatest effort was made, it was met 
and defeated. Entering the Morea with an army which seemed 
capable of bearing down all resistance, the Turks were nevertheless 
defeated and driven back, and pursued beyond the isthmus, within 
which, as far as it appears, from that time to the present, they have 
not been able to set their foot. 

It was in April, of this year, that the destruction of Scio took 
place. That island, a sort of appanage of the Sultana mother, en- 
joyed many privileges peculiar to itself. In a population of 130,000 
or 140,000, it had no more than 2000 or 3000 Turks; indeed, by 
some accounts, not near as many. The absence of these ruffian 
masters, had, in some degree, allowed opportunity for the promotion 
of knowledge, the accumulation of wealth, and the general cultiva- 
tion of society. Here was the seat of the modern Greek literature, 
here were libraries, printing presses, and other establishments, which 
indicate some advancement in refinement and knowledge. Certain 
of the inhabitants of Samos, it would seem, envious of this com- 
parative happiness of Scio, landed upon the island, in an irregular 
multitude, for the purpose of compelling its inhabitants to make 
common cause with their countrymen against their oppressors. 
These, being joined by the peasantry, marched to the city, and 
drove the Turks into the castle. The Turkish fleet, lately reenfor- 
ced from Egypt, happened to be in the neighbouring seas, and 
learning these events, landed a force on the island of 15,000 men 
There was nothing to resist such an army. These troops immedi 
ately entered the city, and began an indiscriminate massacre. The 
city was fired; and, in four days, the fire and the sword of the Turk, 
rendered the beautiful Scio a clotted mass of blood and ashes. 
The details are too shocking to be recited. Forty thousand women 
and children, uniiappily saved from the general destruction, were 



261 

afterwards sold in the market of Smyrna, and sent off into distant 
and hopeless servitude. Even on the wharves of our own cities, it 
has been said, have been sold the utensils of those hearths which 
now exist no longer. Of the whole population which I have men- 
tioned, not above 900 persons were left living upon the island. I 
will only repeat, sir, that these tragical scenes were as fully known 
at the Congress of Verona, as they are now known to us; and it is 
not too much to call on the powers that constituted that Congress, 
in the name of conscience, and in the name of humanity, to tell us, 
if there be nothing even in these unparalleled excesses of Turk- 
ish barbarity, to excite a sentiment of compassion; nothing which 
they regard as so objectionable as even the very idea of popular re- 
sistance to power. 

The events of the year which has just passed by, as far as they 
have become known to us, have been even more favorable to the 
Greeks, than those of the year preceding. I omit all details, as 
being as well known to others as to myself Suffice it to say, that 
with no other enemy to contend with, and no diversion of his force 
to other objects, the Porte has not been able to carry the war into 
the Morea; and that, by the last accounts, its armies were acting 
defensively in Thessaly. I pass over also the naval engagements 
of the Greeks, although that is a mode of warfare in which they 
are calculated to excel, and in which they have already performed 
actions of such distinguished skill and bravery, as would draw ap- 
plause upon the best mariners in the world. The present state of 
the war would seem to be, that the Greeks possess the whole of 
the Morea, with the exception of the three fortresses of Patras, 
Coron and Modon; all Candia, but one fortress; and most of the 
other islands. They possess the citadel of Athens, Missolunghi, 
and several other places in Livadia. They have been able to act 
on the offensive and to carry the war beyond the isthmus. There 
is no reason to believe their marine is weakened; probably, on the 
other hand, it is strengthened. But, what is most of all impor- 
tant, they have obtained time and experience. They have awaken- 
ed a sympathy throughout Europe and throughout America; and 
they have formed a government which seems suited to the emer 
gency of their condition. 

Sir, they have done much. It would be great injustice to com- 
pare their achievements with our own. We began our revolution, 
already possessed of government, and, comparatively, of civil liberty. 
Our ancestors had, for centuries, been accustomed in a great mea- 
sure to govern themselves. They were well acquainted with popu- 
lar elections and legislative assemblies, and the general principles 
and practice of free governments. They had little else to do than 
to throw off the paramount authority of the parent state. Enough 
was still left, both of law and of organization, to conduct society in 
its accustomed course, and to unite men together for a common ob- 
ject. The Greeks, of course, could act with little concert at the 
beginning; they were unaccustomed to the exercise of power, with- 
out experience, with limited knowledge, without aid, and surrounded 
by nations, which, whatever claims the Greeks might seem to have 
had upon them, have afforded them nothing but discouragement and 



262 

reproach. They have held out, however, for three campaigns; and 
that, at least, is something. Constantinople and the northern pro- 
vinces have sent forth thousands of troops; — they have been defeat- 
ed. Tripoli, and Algiers, and Egypt, have contributed their marine 
contingents; — they have not kept the ocean. Hordes of Tartars 
have crossed the Bosphorus; — they have died where the Persians 
died. The powerful monarchies in the neighbourhood have denoun- 
ced their cause, and admonished them to abandon it, and submit to 
their fate. They have answered them, that, although two hundred 
thousand of their countrymen have offered up their lives, there yet 
remain lives to offer; and that it is the determination of oil, " yes, of 
ALL," to persevere until they shall have established their liberty, or 
until the power of their oppressors shall have relieved them from the 
burden of existence. 

It may now be asked, perhaps, whether the expression of our own 
sympathy, and that of the country, may do them good? I hope it 
may. It may give them courage and spirit, it may assure them of 
public regard, teach them that they are not wholly forgotten by the 
civilized world, and inspire them with constancy in the pursuit of 
their great end. At any rate, sir, it appears to me, that the measure 
which I have proposed is due to our own character, and called for 
by our own duty. When we shall have discharged that duty, we 
may leave the rest to the disposition of Providence. 

I do not see how it can be doubted, that this measure is entirely 
pacific. I profess my inability to perceive that it has any possible 
tendency to involve our neutral relations. If the resolution pass, it 
is not, necessarily, to be immediately acted on. It will not be acted 
on at all, unless, in the opinion of the President, a proper and safe 
occasion for acting upon it shall arise. If we adopt the resolution 
to-day, our relations with every foreign state will be to-morrow pre- 
cisely what they now are. The resolution will be sufficient to ex- 
press our sentiments on the subjects to which I have adverted. 
Useful to that purpose, it can be mischievous to no purpose. If the 
topic were properly introduced into the Message, it cannot be im- 
properly introduced into discussion in this House. If it were prop- 
er, which no one doubts, for the President to express his opinions 
upon it, it caimot, I think, be improper for us to express ours. The 
only certain effect of this resolution is to express, in a form usual 
in bodies constituted like this, our approbation of the general senti- 
ment of the Message. Do we wish to withhold that approbation.^ 
Till' Resoiulioa confers on the President no new power, nor does it enjoin 
on him the exercise of any neic duty; nor does it hasten him in the dis- 
charge of any exisling duly. 

I cannot imagine that this resolution can add anything to those 
excitements which it has been supposed, I think very causelessly, 
might possibly provoke the Turkish government to acts of hostility 
There is already the IMessage, expressing the hope of success to 
the Greeks, and disaster to the Turks, in a much stronger manner 
than is to be in)i)lied from the terms of this resolution. There is 
the correspondence between the Secretary of State and the Greek 
Agent in London, already made public, in which similar wishes are 
expressed, and a continuance of the correspondence apparently in- 



263 

vited. I might add to this, the unexampled burst of feeling which this 
cause has called forth from all classes of society, and the notorious 
fact of pecuniary contributions made throughout the country for its 
aid and advancement. After all this, whoever can see cause of 
danger to our pacific relations from the adoption of this resolution, 
has a keener vision than I can pretend to. Sir, there is no aug- 
mented danger; there is no danger. The question comes at last to 
this, whether, on a subject of this sort, this House holds an opinion 
which is worthy to be expressed.'' 

Even suppose, sir, an Agent or Commissioner were to be imme- 
diately sent, — a measure which I myself believe to be the proper 
one, — there is no breach of neutrality, nor any just cause of otfence. 
Such an agent, of course, would not be accredited ; he would not 
be a public minister. The object would be inquiry and information; 
inquiry, which we have a right to make; information, which we are 
interested to possess. If a dismemberment of the Turkish empire 
be taking place, or has already taken place; if a new state be rising, 
or be already risen, in the Mediterranean, who can doubt, that, 
without any breach of neutrality, we may inform ourselves of these 
events, for the government of our own concerns? 

The Greeks have declared the Turkish coasts in a state of block- 
ade; may we not inform ourselves whether this blockade be nominal 
or reaif And, of course, whether it shall be regarded or disregarded ? 
The greater our trade may happen to be with Smyrna, a considera- 
tion which seems to have alarmed some gentlemen, the greater is 
the reason, in my opinion, why we should seek to be accurately in- 
formed of those events which may affect its safety. 

It seems to me impossible, therefore, for any reasonable man to 
imagine, that this resolution can expose us to the resentment of the 
sublime Porte. 

As little reason is there for fearing its consequences upon the 
conduct of the Allied Powers. They may, very naturally, dislike our 
sentiments upon the subject of the Greek Revolution; but what those 
sentiments are, they will much more explicitly learn in the Presi- 
dent's Message than in this resolution. They might, indeed, prefer 
that we should express no dissent upon the doctrines which they have 
avowed, and the application which they have made of those doctrines 
to the case of Greece. But I trust we are not disposed to leave 
them in any doubt as to our sentiments upon these important subjects. 
They have expressed their opinions, and do not call that expression 
of opinion, an intcrfireiuc ; in which respect they are right, as the 
expression of opinion, in such cases, is not such an inloference as 
would justify the Greeks in considering the powers as at war with 
them. For the same reason, any expression which we may make, 
of different principles and different sympathies, is no interference. 
No one would call the President's Message an interference; and yet it 
is much stronger, in that respect, than this resolution. If either of 
them could be construed to be an interference, no doubt it would be 
improper, at least it would be so, according to my view of the subject; 
for the very thing which 1 have attemi)ted to resist in the course of 
these ohsei vations, is the riojit of loreijiii interfertnce. Tint neither 
the Message nor the resolution has that character. There is not a 



264 

power in Europe that can suppose, that, in expressing our opinions 
on this occasion, we are governed by any desire of aggrandizing 
ourselves, or of injuring others. We do no more than to maintain 
those established principles, in which we have an interest in common 
with other nations, and to resist the introduction of new principles 
and new rules, calculated to destroy the relative independence of 
states, and particularly hostile to the whole fabric of our own gov- 
ernment. 

I close, then, sir, with repeating, that the object of this resolution 
is, to avail ourselves of the interesting occasion of the Greek revo- 
lution, to make our protest against the doctrines of the Allied Pow- 
ers; both as they are laid down in principle, and as they are applied 
in practice. 

I think it right too, sir, not to be unseasonable in the expression 
of our regard, and, as far as that goes, in a ministration of our con- 
solation, to a long oppressed and now struggling people. I am not 
of those who would in the hour of utmost peril, withhold such en- 
couragement as might be properly and lawfully given, and when the 
crisis should be past, overwhelm the rescued sutferer with kindness 
and caresses. The Greeks address the civilized world with a pa- 
thos, not easy to be resisted. They invoke our favor by more 
moving considerations than can well belong to the condition of any 
other people. They stretch out their arms to the Christian commu- 
nities of the earth, beseeching them, by a generous recollection of 
their ancestors, by the consideration of their own desolated and 
ruined cities and villages, by their wives and children, sold into an 
accursed slavery, by their own blood, which they seem willing to 
pour out like water, by the common faith, and in the Name, which 
unites all Christians, that they would extend to them, at least some 
token of compassionate regard. 



SPEECH 



UPON THE TARIFF ; DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL, 1824. 



Mr. Chairman, — I will avail myself of the present occasion to 
make some remarks on certain principles and opinions which have 
been recently advanced, and on those considerations which, in my 
judgment, ought to govern us in deciding upon tlie several and re- 
spective parts of this very important and complex measure. I can 
truly say that this is a painful duty. I deeply regret the necessity, 
which is likely to be imposed upon me, of giving a general affirma- 
tive or negative vote on the whole of the Bill. I cannot but think 
this mode of proceeding liable to great objections. It exposes both 
those who support, and those who oppose, the measure, to very un- 
just and injurious misapprehensions. There may be good reasons 
for favoring some of the provisions of the Bill, and equally strong 
reasons for opposing others; and these provisions do not stand to 
each other in the relation of principal and incident. If that were 
the case, those who are in favor of the principal might forego their 
opinions upon incidental and subordinate provisions. But the Bill 
proposes enactments entirely distinct, and different from one anoth- 
er, in character and tendencv. Some of its clauses are intended 
merely for revenue; and, of those which regard the protection of 
home manufactures, one part stands upon very different grounds 
from those of other parts. So that probably every gentleman who 
may ultimately support the bill will vote for much which his judg- 
ment does not approve; and those who oppose it will oppose some- 
thing which they would very gladly support. 

Being intrusted with the interests of a district highly commer- 
cial, and deeply interested in manufactures also, I wish to state my 
opinions on the present measure; not as on a whole, for it has no 
entire and homogeneous character; but as on a collection of differ- 
ent enactments, some of which meet my approbation, and some of 
which do not. 

And allow me, sir, in the first place, to state my regret, if indeed 
I ought not to express a warmer sentiment, at the names, or desig- 
nations, which Mr. Speaker has seen fit to adopt, for the purpose of 
describing the advocates and the opposers of the present Bill. It 
is a question, he says, between the friends of an " American policy," 
34 y 



266 

and those of a " foreign policy." This, sir, is an assumption which 
I take the Hberty most directly to deny. Mr. Speaker certainly in- 
tended nothing invidious or derogatory to any part of the House by 
this mode of denominating friends and enemies. But there is pow- 
er in names, and this manner of distinguishing those who favor and 
those who oppose particular measures, may lead to inferences to 
which no member of the House can submit. It may imply that 
there is a more exclusive and peculiar regard to American interests 
in one class of opinions than in another. Such an implication is to 
be resisted and repelled. Every member has a right to the presump- 
tion, that he pursues what he believes to be the interest of his coun- 
try, with as sincere a zeal as any other member. I claim this in 
my own case; and, while I shall not, for any purpose of description, 
or convenient arrangement, use terms which may imply any disre- 
spect to other men's opinions, much less any imputations of other 
men's motives, it is my duty to take care that the use of such terms 
by others be not, against the will of those who adopt them, made to 
produce a false impression. Indeed, sir, it is a little astonishing, if 
it seemed convenient to Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of distinction, 
to make use of the terms " American policy," and " foreign policy," 
that he should not have applied them in a manner precisely the re- 
verse of that in which he has in fact used them. If names are 
thought necessary, it would be well enough, one would think, that 
the name should be, in some measure, descriptive of the thing; and 
since Mr. Speaker denominates the policy which he recommends " a 
new policy in this country;" since he speaks of the present measure 
as a new era in our legislation; since he professes to invite us to de- 
part from our accustomed course, to instruct ourselves by the wisdom 
of others, and to adopt the policy of the most distinguished foreign 
slates, one is a little curious to know with what propriety of speech 
this imitation of other nations is denominated an "American policy," 
while, on the contrary, a preference for our own established system, 
as it now actually exists, and always has existed, is called a " foreign 
policy." This favorite American policy is what America has never 
tried; and this odious foreign policy is what, as we are told, foreign 
states have never pursued. Sir, that is the truest American policy 
which shall most usefully employ American capital, and American 
labor, and best sustain the whole population. With me it is a fun- 
damentaraxiom, it is interwoven with all my opinions, that the great 
interests of the country are united and inseparable; that agriculture, 
commerce, and manufactures, will prosper together, or languish to- 
gether; and that all legislation is dangerous which proposes to ben- 
efit one of these without looking to consequences which may fall on 
the others. 

Passing from this, sir, I am bound to say that Mr. Speaker bdfgan 
his able and impressive speech at the proper point of inquiry ; I mean 
the present state and condition of the country; although I am so unfor- 
tunate, or rather although 1 am so happy, as to dirter from him very 
widelv in regard to that condition. 1 dissent entirely from the jus- 
tice of that picture of distress which he has drawn. I have not seen 
the reality, and know not where it exists. Within my observation 
there is no cause for so gloomy and terrifying a representation. In 



267 

respect to the New England states, with the condition of which I am, 
of course, most acquainted, the present appears to me a period of 
very general prosperity. Not, indeed, a time for great profits and 
sudden acquisition; not a day of extraordinary activity and success- 
ful speculation. There is, no doubt, a considerable depression of 
prices, and, in some degree, a stagnation of business. But the case 
presented by Mr. Speaker was not one of depression, but of distress; 
of universal, pervading, intense distress, limited to no class, and to 
no place. We are represented as on the very verge and brink of 
national ruin. So far from acquiescing in these opinions, I believe 
there has been no period in which the general prosperity was better 
secured, or rested on a more solid foundation. As applicable to the 
Eastern states, I put this remark to their Representatives, and ask 
them if it is not true. When has there been a time in which the 
means of living have been more accessible and more abundant? 
when has labor been rewarded, I do not say with a larger, but with 
a more certain success? Profits, indeed, are low; in some pursuits 
of life, which it is not proposed to benefit, but to burden, by this Bill, 
very low. But still I am unacquainted with any proofs of extraor- 
dinary distress. What, indeed, are the general indications of the 
state of the country ? There is no famine nor pestilence in the land, 
nor war, nor desolation. There is no writhing under the burden of 
taxation. The means of subsistence are abundant; and at the very 
moment when the miserable condition of the country is asserted, it 
is admitted that the wages of labor are high, in comparison with 
those of any other country. A country, then, enjoying a profound 
peace, a perfect civil liberty, with the means of subsistence cheap 
and abundant, with the reward of labor sure, and its wages higher 
than anywhere else, cannot be represented in gloom, melancholy, 
and distress, but by the eflxtrt of extraordinary powers of tragedy. 
Even if, in judging of this question, we were to regard only those 
proofs to which we have been referred, we shall probably come to a 
conclusion somewhat different from that which has been drawn. 
Our exports, for example, although certainly less than in some years, 
were not, last year, so much below an average, formed upon the ex- 
ports of a series of years, and putting those exports at a fixed value, 
as might be supposed. The exports of agricultural products, of 
animals, of the products of the forest, of the sea, together with gun- 
powder, spirits, and sundry unenumerated articles, amounted, in the 
several years, to the following sums, viz. 

In 1790 - - - - $ 27,7*6,152 

1804 - - - - 33,842,316 

1807 . - . . 38,465,854 

Coming up, now, to our own times, and taking the exports of the 
years 1821, 1822, and 1823, of the same articles and products, at the 
same prices, they stand thus: 

In 1821 ... - $45,643,175 

1822 - - - - 48,782,295 

1823 - - - - 55,863,491 

Mr. Speaker has taken the very extraordinary year of 1803, and, 
adding to the exportation of that year, what he thhiks ought to have 



268 

been a just augmentation, in proportion to the increase of our popu- 
lation, he swells the result to a magnitude, which, when compared 
with our actual exports, would exhibit a great deficiency. But is 
there any justice in this mode of calculation? In the first place, as 
before observed, the year 1803 was a year of extraordinary exporta- 
tion. By reference to the accounts, that of the article of flour, lor 
example, there jvas an export that year of 1,300,000 barrels; but the 
very next year it fell to 800,000, and the next year to 700,000. In 
the next place, there never was any reason to expect that the increase 
of our exports of agricultural products, would keep pace with the 
increase of our population. That would be against all experience. 
It is, indeed, most desirable, that there should be an augmented de- 
mand for the products of agriculture; but, nevertheless, the official 
returns of our exports do not show that absolute want of all foreign 
market, which has been so strongly stated. 

But there are other means by which to judge of the general con- 
dition of the people. The quantity of the means of subsistence 
consumed; or, to make use of a phraseology better suited to the con- 
dition of our own people, the quantity of the comforts of life enjoyed,, 
is one of those means. It so happens, indeed, that it is not so easy 
in this country, as elsewhere, to ascertain facts, of this sort, with 
accuracy. Where most of the articles of subsistence, and most of 
the comforts of life are taxed, there is, of course, great facility in 
ascertaining, from official statements, the amount of consumption. 
But, in this country, most fortunately, the government neither knows, 
nor is concerned to know, the annual consumption; and estimates 
can only be formed in another mode, and in reference only to a few 
articles. Of these articles, tea is one. Its use is not quite a luxu- 
ry, and yet is something above the absolute necessaries of life. Its 
consumption, therefore, will be diminished in times of adversity, and 
augmented in times of prosperity. By deducting the annual export 
from the annual import, and taking a number of years together, we 
may arrive at a probable estimate of consumption. The average of 
eleven years, from 1790, to 1800, inclusive, will be found to be two 
millions and a half of pounds. From 1801 to 1812, inclusive, three 
millions seven hundred thousand; and the average of the last three 
years, to wit: 1821, 1822, and 1823, five millions and a half. Hav- 
ing made a just allowance for the increase of our numbers, we shall 
still find, I think, from these statements, that there is no distress 
which ha% limited our means of subsistence and enjoyment. 

In forming an opinion of the degree of general prosperity, we may 
regard, likewise, the progress of internal improvements — the invest- 
ment of capital in roads, bridges, and canals. All these prove a 
balance of income over expenditure; they are evidence that there is 
a surplus of profits, which the present generation is usefully vesting 
for the benefit of the next. It cannot be denied that, in this partic- 
ular, the progress of the country is steady and rapid. 

We may look, too, to the expenses of education. Are our Col- 
leges deserted.^ Do fathers find themselves less able than usual to 
educate their children.^ It will be found, I imagine, that the amount 
paid for the purpose of education, is constantly increasing, and that 
the schools and colleges were never more full than at the present 



269 

moment. I may add that the endowment of public charities, the 
contributions to objects of general benevolence, whether foreign or 
domestic, the munificence of individuals towards whatever promises 
to benefit the community, are all so many proofs of national pros- 
perity. And, finally, there is no defalcation of revenue, no pressure 
of taxation. 

The general result, therefore, of a fair examination of the present 
condition of things, seems to me to be, that there is a considerable 
depression of prices, and curtailment of profit; and, in some parts of 
the country, it must be admitted, there is a great degree of^ pecuniary 
embarrassment, arising from the difficulty of paying debts which were 
contracted when prices were high. With these qualifications, the 
general state of the country may be said to be prosperous; and these 
are not sufficient to give to the whole face of affairs any appearance 
of general distress. 

Supposing the evil, then, to be a depression of prices, and a partial 
pecuniary pressure, the next inquiry is into the causes of that evil; 
and it appears to me that there are several — and, in this respect, I 
think, too much has been imputed, by Mr. Speaker, to the single 
cause of the diminution of exports. Connected, as we are, with all 
the commercial nations of the world, and having observed great 
changes to take place elsewhere, we should consider whether the 
causes of those changes have not reached us, and whether we are 
not suffering by the operation of them, in common with others. Un- 
doubtedly, there has been a great fall in the price of all commodities 
throughout the commercial world, in consequence of the restoration 
of a state of peace. When the Allies entered France in 1814, prices 
rose astonishingly fast, and very high. Colonial produce, for in- 
stance, in the ports of this country, as well as elsewhere, sprung up 
suddenly from the lowest to the highest extreme. A new and vast 
demand was created for the commodities of trade. These were the 
natural consequences of the great political changes which then took 
place in Europe. 

We are to consider, too, that our own war created new demand, 
and that a government expenditure of 25,000,000, or 30,000,000, a 
year, had the usual effect of enhancing prices. We are obliged to 
add, that the paper issues of our Banks carried the same effect still 
further. A depreciated currency existed in a great part of the coun- 
try; depreciated to such an extent as that, at one time, exchange be- 
tween the centre and the north, was as high as 20 per cent. The 
Bank of the United States was instituted to correct this evil; but, for 
causes which it is not necessary now to enumerate, it did not for 
some years, bring back the currency of the country to a sound state. 
This depreciation of the circulating currency, was so much, of course, 
added to the nominal prices of commodities, and these prices thus 
unnaturally high, seemed, to those who looked only at the appearance, 
to indicate great prosperity. But such prosperity is more specious 
than real. It would have been better, probably, as the shock would 
have been less, if prices had fallen sooner. At length, however, they 
fell; and, as. there is little doubt that certain events in Europe had an 
influence in determining the time at which this fall should take place, 
I will advert shortly to some of the principal of those events. 



270 

In May, 1819, the British House of Commons decided, by an 
unanimous vote, that the resumption of cash payments by the Bank 
of England, should not be deferred beyond the ensuing February. 
The restriction had been continued from time to time, and from year 
to year. Parliament always professing to look to the restoration of a 
specie currency, whenever it should be found practicable. Having 
been, in July, 1818, continued to July, 1819, it was understood that, 
in the interim, the important question of the time at which cash pay- 
ments should be resumed, should be finally settled. In the latter 
part of the year '18, the circulation of the Bank had been greatly re- 
duced, and a severe scarcity of money was felt in the London market. 
Such was the state of things in England. On the continent, other 
important events took place. The French Indemnity Loan had been 
negotiated in the summer of 1818, and the proportion of it belonging 
to Austria, Russia, and Prussia, had been sold. This created an 
unusual demand for gold and silver in these Eastern States of Europe. 
It has been stated, that the amount of the precious metals transmitted 
to Austria and Russia in that year, was at least twenty millions 
sterling. Other large sums were sent to Prussia and to Denmark. 
The eftect of this sudden drain of specie, felt first at Paris, was com- 
municated to Amsterdam and Hamburg, and all other commercial 
places in the north of Europe. 

The paper system of England had certainly communicated an arti- 
ficial value to property. It had encouraged speculation, and excited 
overtrading. When the shock therefore came, and this violent pres- 
sure for money acted at the same moment on the continent and in 
England, inflated and unnatural prices could be kept up no longer. 
A reduction took place, which has been estimated to have been at 
least equal to a fall of 30, if not 40 per cent. The depression was 
universal; and the change was felt in the United States severely, 
though not equally so in every part of them. There are those, I am 
aware, who maintain that the events to which I have alluded did not 
cause the great fall of prices; but that that fall was natural and inevi- 
table, from the previously existing state of things, the abundance of 
commodities, and the want of demand. But that would only prove 
that the effect was produced in another way, rather than by another 
cause. If these great and sudden calls for money did not reduce 
prices, but prices fell, as of themselves, to their natural state, still 
the result is the same; for we perceive that after these new calls foi 
money, prices could not be kept longer at their unnatural height. 

About the time of these foreign events, our own bank system under 
went a change; and all these causes, in my view of the subject, con 
curred to produce the great shock which took place in our commercial 
cities, and through many parts of the country. The year 1819 was 
a year of numerous failures, and very considerable distress, and would 
have furnished far better grounds than exist at present, for that gloomy 
representation of our condition which has been presented. Mr 
Speaker has alhuled to the strong inclination which exists, or has- 
existed, in various parts of the country to issue paper money, as a 
proof of great existing difficulties. I regard it rather as a very pro- 
ductive cause of those difficulties; and the committee will not fail to 
observe, that there is, at this moment, much the loudest complaint 



271 

of distress precisely where there has been the greatest attempt to 
relieve it by systems of paper credit. And, on the other hand, con- 
tent, prosperity, and happiness, are most observable in those parts 
of the country, where there has been the least endeavour to adminis- 
ter relief by law. In truth, nothing is so baneful, so utterly ruinous 
to all true industry, as interfering with the legal value of money, or 
attempting to raise artificial standards to supply its place. Such 
remedies suit well the spirit of extravagant speculation, but they sap 
the very foundation of all honest acquisition. By weakening the 
security of property, they take away all motive for exertion. Their 
effect is to transfer property. Whenever a debt is allowed to be 
paid by anything less valuable than the legal currency in respect to 
which it was contracted, the difference, between the value of the 
paper given in payment and the legal currency, is precisely so much 
property taken from one man and given to another, by legislative 
enactment. When we talk, therefore, of protecting industry, let us 
remember that the first measure for that end, is to secure it in its 
earnings; to assure it that it shall receive its own. Before we in- 
vent new modes of raising prices, let us take care that existing 
prices are not rendered wholly unavailable, by making them capable 
of being paid in depreciated paper. I regard, sir, this issue of 
irredeemable paper as the most prominent and deplorable cause of 
whatever pressure still exists in the country; and, further, I would 
put the question to the members of this Committee, whether it is not 
from that part of the people who have tried this paper system, asd 
tried it to their cost, that this Bill receives the most earnest support.' 
And I cannot fortlear to ask, further, whether this support does not 
proceed rather from a general feeling of uneasiness under the pre- 
sent condition of things, than from the clear perception of any benefit 
which the measure itself can confer.? Is not all expectation of ad- 
vantage centred in a sort of vague hope, that change may produce 
relief? Debt certainly presses hardest, where prices have been 
longest kept up by artificial means. They find the shock lightest, 
who take it soonest; and I fully believe that, if those parts of the 
country which now suffer most, had not augmented the force of the 
blow by deferring it, they would have now been in a much better con- 
ditii>n than they are. We may assure ourselves, once for all, sir, that 
there can be no such thing as payment of debts by legislation. We 
may abolish debts indeed: we may transfer property, by visionary and 
violent laws. But we deceive both ourselves and our constituents, 
if we flatter, either ourselves or them, with the hope that there is 
any relief against Avhatever pressure exists, but in economy and in- 
dustry. The depression of prices and the stagnation of business, 
have been in truth the necessary result of circumstances. No 
government could prevent them, and no government can altogether 
relieve the people from their efi^^ct. We had anjoyed a day of "extra- 
ordinary prosperity; we had b(!en neutral while the world was at war, 
and had found a great demand for our products, our navigation, and 
our labor. Wc had no right to expect that that state of things would 
continue always. With the return of peace, foreign nations would 
struggle for themselves, and enter into competition with us in the 
great objects of pursuit. 



272 

Now, sir, what is the remedy for existing evils? what is the course 
of policy suited to our actual condition? Certainly it is not our 
wisdom to adopt any system that may be offered to us without ex- 
amination, and in the blind hope that whatever changes our condition 
may improve it. It is better that we should 

" Bear tliose ills we have, 

Than fly to others tliat we know not of." 

We are bound to see that there is a fitness and an aptitude in what- 
ever measures may be recommended to relieve the evils that afflict 
us; and before we adopt a system that professes to make great al- 
terations, it is our duty to look carefully to each leading interest of 
the community, and see how it may probably be affected by our 
proposed legislation. 

And, in the first place, what is the condition of our commerce? 
Here we must clearly perceive, that it is not enjoying that rich har- 
vest which fell to its fortune during the continuance of the Euro- 
pean wars. It has been greatly depressed, and limited to small 
profits. Still, it is elastic and active, and seems capable of recov- 
ering itself in some measure tiom its depression. The shipping 
interest, also, has suffered severely, still more severely, probably, 
than commerce. If anything should strike us with astonishment, it 
is that the navigation of the United States should be able to sustain 
itself Without any government protection whatever, it goes abroad 
to challenge competition with the whole world; and, in spite of all 
obstacles, it has yet been able to maintain 800,000 tons in the em- 
ployment of foreign trade. How, sir, do the ship ^vners and navi- 
gators accomplish this? How is it that they are able to meet, and 
in some measure overcome, universal competition? Not, sir, by 
protection and bounties; but by unwearied exertion, by extreme 
economy, by unshaken perseverance, by that manly and resolute 
spirit which relies on itself to protect itself. These causes alone 
enable American ships still to keep their element, and show the flag 
of their country in distant seas. The rates of insurance mav teach 
us how thoroughly our ships are built, and how skilfully and safely 
they are navigated. Risks are taken, as I learn, from the United 
States to Liverpool, at 1 per cent.; and from the United States to/ 
Canton and back, as low as 3 per cent. But when we look to the 
low rate of freight, and when we consider, also, that the articles 
entering into the composition of a ship, with the exception of wood, 
are dearer here than in other countries, we cannot but be utterly 
surprised, that the shipping interest has been able to sustain itself 
at all. I need not say that the navigation of the country is essen- 
tial to its honor, and its defence. Yet, instead of proposing benefit 
for it in this hour of its depression, we propose by this measure to 
lay upon it new and heavy burdens. In the discussion, the other 
day, of that provision of the bill which proposes to tax tallow lor 
the benefit of the oil merchants and whalemen, we had the pleasure 
of hearing eloquent eulogiums upon that portion of our shipping 
employed in the whale fishery, and strong statements of its impor- 
tance to the public interest. But the same Bill proposes a severe 
tax upon that interest, for the benefit of the iron manufacturer and 



273 

the hemp grower. So that the tallowchandlers and soapboilers are 
sacrificed to the oil merchants, in order that these again may contri- 
bute to the manufacturers of iron and the growers of hemp. 

If such be the state of our commerce and navigation, what is the 
condition of our home manufactures ? How are they amidst the gen- 
eral depression? Do they need further protection? and if any, how 
much? On all these points, we have had much general statement, 
but little precise information. In the very elaborate speech of Mr. 
Speaker, we are not supplied with satisfactory grounds of judging in 
these various particulars. Who can tell, from anything yet before 
the Committee, whether the proposed duty be too high or too low, 
on any one article? Gentlemen tell us, that they are in favor of do- 
mestic industry; so am I. They would give it protection: so would 
I. But then all domestic industry is not confined to manufactures. 
The employments of agriculture, commerce, and navigation, are all 
branches of the same domestic industry ; they all furnish employment 
for American capital, and American labor. And when the question 
is, whether new duties shall be laid, for the purpose of giving fur- 
ther encouragement to particular manufactures, every reasonable man 
must ask himself, both, whether the proposed new encouragement 
be necessary, and, whether it can be given without injustice to other 
branches of industry. 

It is desirable to know, also, somewhat more distinctly, how the 
proposed means will produce the intended effect. One great object 
proposed, for example, is, the increase of the home market for the con- 
sumption of agricultural products. This certainly is much to be 
desired; but what provisions of the Bill are expected wholly, or prin- 
cipally to produce this, is not stated. I would not suggest that some 
increase of the home market may not follow, from the adoption of 
this Bill, but all its provisions have not an equal tendency to produce 
this effect. Those manufactures which employ most labor, create 
of course, most demand for articles of consumption; and those create 
least, in the production of which capital and skill enter as the chief 
ingredients of cost. I cannot, sir, take this Bill, merely because a 
Committee has recommended it. I cannot espouse a side, and fight 
under a flag. I Avholly repel the idea, that we must take this law, 
or pass no law on the subject. What should hinder us from exercis- 
ing our own judgments upon these provisions, singly and severally? 
Who has the power to place us, or why should we place ourselves, in 
a condition where we cannot give to every measure, that is distinct 
and separate in itself, a separate and distinct consideration? Sir, I 
presume no member of the Committee will withhold his assent from 
what he thinks right, until others will yield their assent to what they 
think wrong. There are many things in this Bill, acceptable proba- 
bly to the general sense of the House. Why should not these pro- 
visions be passed into a law, and others left to be decided upon their 
own merits, as a majority of the House shall see fit? To some of 
these provisions, I am myself decidedly favorable; to others, I have 
great objections; and 1 should have been very glad of an opportuni- 
ty of giving my own vote distinctly on propositions, which are, in 
their own nature, essentially and substantially distinct from one 
another. 

35 



274 

But, sir, before expressing my own opinion upon the several pro- 
visions of this Bill, I will advert for a moment to some other general 
topics. We have heard much of the policy of England, and her ex- 
ample has been repeatedly urged upon us, as proving, not only the 
expediency of encouragement and protection, but of exclusion and 
direct prohibition also. I took occasion the other day to remark, 
that more liberal notions were growing prevalent on this subject; 
that the policy of restraints and prohibitions was getting out of re- 
pute, as the true nature of commerce became better understood; 
and that, among public men, those most distinguished, were most 
decided in their reprobation of the broad principle of exclusion and 
prohibition. Upon the truth of this representation, as matter of 
fact, I supposed there could not be two opinions among those who 
had observed the progress of political sentiment in other countries, 
and were acquainted with its present state. In this respect, how- 
ever, it would seem, that I was greatly mistaken. We have heard 
it again and again declared, that the English government still ad- 
heres, with immovable firmness, to its old doctrines of prohibition; 
that although journalists, theorists, and scientific writers, advance 
other doctrines, yet the practical men, the legislators, the govern- 
ment of the country, are too wise to follov/ them. It has even been 
most sagaciously hinted, that the promulgation of liberal opinions 
on these subjects, is intended only for a delusion upon other na- 
tions, to cajole them into the folly of liberal ideas, while England 
retains to herself all the benefits of the admirable old system of 
prohibition. We have heard from Mr. Speaker a warm commen- 
dation of the complex mechanism of this system. The British 
Empire, it is said, is, in the first place, to be protected against the 
rest of the world; then the British isles against the colonies; next, 
the isles respectively against each other — England herself, as the 
heart of the empire, being protected most of all, and against all. 

Truly, sir, it appears to me, that Mr. Speaker's imagination has 
seen system, and order, and beauty, in that, which is much more 
justly considered as the result of ignorance, partiality, or violence. 
This part of English legislation has resulted, partly from consider- 
ing Ireland as a conquered country, partly from the want of a com- 
plete union, even with Scotland, and partly from the narrow views 
of colonial regulation, which in early and uninformed periods, in- 
fluenced the European states. 

And, sir, I imagine, nothing would strike the public men of Eng- 
land more singularly, thauto find gentlemen of real information, and 
much weight, in the councils of this country, expressing sentiments 
like these, in regard to the existing state of these English laws. I 
have never said, indeed, that prohibitory laws did not exist in Eng- 
land; we all know they do; but the question is, does she owe her 
prosperity and greatness to these laws? I venture to say, that such is 
not the opinion of the public men now in England, and the continu- 
ance of the laws, even without any alteration, would not be evidence 
that their opinion is different from what I have represented it; be- 
cause the laws having exist(jd long, and great interests having been 
built up on the faith of them, they cannot now be repealed, without 
great and overwhelming inconvenience. Because a thing has been 



275 

wrongly done, it does not therefore follow that it can no; be un- 
done; and this is the reason, as I understand it, upon which exclu- 
sion, prohibition, and monopoly, are suffered to remain in any degree 
in the English system; and for the same reason, it will be wise in i s 
to take our measures, on all subjects of this kind, with great caution. 
We may not be able, but at the hazard of much injury to individuals, 
hereafter to retrace our steps. And yet, whatever is extravagant, 
or unreasonable, is not likely to endure. There may come a moment 
of strong reaction; and if no moderation be shown in laying on du- 
ties, there may be little scruple in taking them off. It may here be 
observed, that there is a broad and marked distinction between entire 
prohibition, and reasonable encouragement. It is one thing by du- 
ties or taxes on foreign articles, to awaken a home competition in 
the production of the same articles; it is anoiher thing to remove all 
competition by a total exclusion of the foreign article; and it is quite 
another thing still, by total prohibition, to raise at home, manufactures 
not suited to the climate, the nature of the country, or the state of 
the population. These are substantial distinctions, and although it 
may not be easy in every case, to determine which of them applies to 
a given article, yet, the distinctions themselves exist, and in most 
cases, will be sufficiently clear to indicate the true course of policy; 
and, unless I have greatly mistaken the prevailing sentiment in the 
councils of England, it grows every day more and more favorable to 
the diminution of restrictions, and to the wisdom of leaving much (I 
do not say everything, for that would not be true) to the enterprise 
and the discretion of individuals. I should certainly not have taken 
up the time of the Committee to state at any length the opinions of 
other governments, or of the public men of other countries, upon a 
subject like this; but an occasional remark made by me the other day, 
having been so directly controverted, especially by Mr. Speaker, in 
his observations yesterday, I must take occasion to refer to some 
proofs of what I have stated. 

What, then, is the state of English opinion ? Everybody knows that, 
after the termination of the late European war, there came a time of 
great pressure in England. Since her example has been quoted, let 
it be asked in what mode her government sought relief Did it aim 
to maintain artificial and unnatural prices ? Did it maintain a swollen 
and extravagant paper circulation ? Did it carry further the laws of 
prohibition and exclusion ? Did it draw closer the cords of colonial 
restraint .' No, sir, but precisely the reverse. Instead of relying on 
legislative contrivances and artificial devices, it trusted to the en- 
terprise and industry of the people; which it sedulously sought to 
excite, not by imposing restraint, but by removing it, wherever its 
removal was practicable. In May, 1820, the attention of the gov- 
ernment having been much turned to the state of foreign trade, a 
distinguished member* of the House of Peers brought forward a 
parliamentary motion upon that subject, followed by an ample dis- 
cussion, and a full statement of his own opinions. In the course of 
his remarks, he observed, " That there ought to be no prohibitory 
duties, as such; for that it was evident, that where a manufacture 
could not be carried on, or a production raised, but under the pro- 

* Lord Lanijduwne. 



276 

tection of a prohibitory duty, that manufacture, or that produce, 
could not be brought to market but at a loss. In his opinion, the 
name of strict prohibition might, therefore, in commerce, be got 
rid of altogether; but he did not see the same objection to protecting 
duties, which, while they admitted of the introduction of commodi- 
ties from abroad similar to those which we ourselves manufactured, 
placed them so much on a level, as to allow a competition between 
them." " No axiom," he added, " was more true than this: that it 
was by growing what the territory of a country could grow most 
cheaply, and by receiving from other countries what it could not 
produce except at too great an expense, that the greatest degree of 
happiness was to be communicated to the greatest extent of popula- 
tion." In assenting to the motion, the first Minister* of the Crown 
expressed his own opinion of the great advantage resulting from un- 
restricted freedom of trade. " Of the soundness of that general 
principle," he observed, " I can entertain no doubt. I can entertain 
no doubt of what would have been the great advantages to the civ- 
ilized world, if the system of unrestricted trade had been acted upon 
by every nation, from the earliest period of its commercial intercourse 
with its neighbours. If to those advantages there could have been 
any exceptions, I am persuaded that they would have been but few; 
and I am also persuaded that the cases, to which they would have 
referred, would not have been, in themselVes, connected with the 
trade and commerce of England. But we are now in a situation in 
which, I will not say that a reference to the principle of unrestricted 
trade can be of no use, because such a reference may correct er- 
roneous reasoning — but in which it is impossible for us, or for any 
country in the world, but the United States of America, to act unre- 
servedly on that principle. The commercial regulations of the Eu- 
ropean world have been long established, and cannot suddenly be 
departed from." Having supposed a proposition to be made to Eng- 
land, by a foreign state, for free commerce and intercourse, and an 
unrestricted exchange of agricultural products, and of manufactures, 
he proceeds to observe: "It would be impossible to accede to such 
a proposition. We have risen to our present greatness under a dif- 
ferent system. Some suppose that we have risen in consequence 
of that system; others^ of ii^hom I am one, believe that we have risen in 
SPITE OF THAT SYSTEM. But, whichever of these hypotheses be 
true, certain it is, that we have risen under a very difierent system 
than that of free and unrestricted trade. It is utterly impossible, 
with our debt and taxation, even if they were but half their existing 
amount, that we can suddenly adopt the system of free trade." Lord 
EUenborough, in the same debate, said, " That he attributed the 
general distress then existing in Europe, to the regulations that had 
taken place since the destruction of the French power. Most of 
, the states on the continent had surrounded themselves as with walls 
of brass, to inhibit intercourse with other states. Intercourse was 
prohibited, even in districts of the same state, as was the case in 
Austria and Sardinia. Thus, though the taxes on tiie people had 
been lightened, the severity of their condition had been increased. 
He believed that the discontent which pervaded most parts of Eu- 

* Lord Liverpool. 



277 

rope, and especially Germany, was more owing to commercial re- 
strictions, tlian to any theoretical doctrines on government; pv^ that 
a free communication among them would do more to restore tran- 
quillity, than any other step that could be adopted. He objected to 
all attempts to frustrate the benevolent intentions of Providence, 
which had given to various countries various wants, in order to bring 
them together. He objected to it as antisocial; he objected to it, as 
making commerce the means of barbarising, instead of enlightening 
nations. The state of the trade with France was the most disgrace- 
ful to both countries; the two greatest civilized nations of the world, 
placed at a distance of scarcely twenty miles from each other, had 
contrived, by their artificial regulations, to reduce their commerce 
with each other to a mere nullity." Every member, speaking on this 
occasion, agreed in the general sentiments favorable to unrestricted 
intercourse, which had thus been advanced; one of them remarking, 
at the conclusion of the debate, that " the principles of free trade, 
which he was happv to see so fully recognised, were of the utmostr 
consequence; for, though, in the present circumstances of the coun- 
try, a free trade was unattainable, yet their task hereafter was to ap- 
proximate to it. Considering the prejudices and interests which 
were opposed to the recognition of that principle, it was no small 
indication of the firmness and liberality of government, to have so 
fuliy conceded it." 

Sir, we have seen, in the course of this discussion, that -several 
gentlemen have expressed their high admiration of the silk manvfac- 
turc of England. Its commendation was begun, I think, by the hon- 
orable member from A^ermont, who sits near me, who thinks that 
that alone gives conclusive evidence of the benefits produced by at- 
tention to manufactures, inasmuch as it is a great source of wealth 
to the nation, and has amply repaid all the cost of its protection. 
Mr. Speaker's approbation of this part of the English example, was 
still warmer. Now, sir, it does so happen, that both these gentlemen 
differ very widely on this point, from the opinions entertained in Eng- 
land, by persons of the first rank, both of^ knowledge and of power. 
In the debate to which I have already referred, the proposer of the 
motion urged the expediency of providing for the admission of the 
silks of France into England. " He was aware," he said, " that 
there was a poor and industrious body of manufacturers, whose inter- 
ests must suffer by such an arrangement; and therefore he felt that 
it would be the duty of parliament to provide for the present genera- 
tion, by a large parliamentary grant. It was conformable to every 
principle of sound justice to do so, when the interests of a particular 
class were sacrificed to the good of the whole." In answer to these 
observations. Lord Liverpool said that, with reference to several 
branches of manufactures, time, and the change of circumstances, 
had rendered the system of protecting duties merely nominal; and 
that, in his opinion, if all the protecting laws which regarded both 
the woollen and cotton manufactures, were to be repealed, no inju- 
rious effects would thereby be occasioned. " But," he observes, 
" with respect to silk, that manufacture in this kingdom is so com- 
pletely artificial, that any attempt to introduce the principles of free 
trade with reference to it, might put an end to it altogether. I allow 

z 



278 

that the silk manufacture is not natural to this country. / wisji we had 
never had a silk mannfadory. I allow that it is natural to France; I 
allow, that it might have been better, had each country adhered ex- 
clusively to that manulacture in which each is superior; and had 
the silks of France been exchanged for British cottons. But I 
must look at things as they are; and when I consider the extent of 
capital, and the immense population, consisting, I believe, of about 
50,000 persons engaged in our silk manufacture, I can only say, 
that one of the few points in which I totally disagree with the pro- 
poser of the motion, is the expediency, under existing circumstan- 
ces, of holding out any idea, that it would be possible to relinquish 
the silk manufacture, and to provide for those who live by it, by 
parliamentary enactment. Wliatever objections there may be to 
the continuance of the protecting system, I repeat, that it is impos- 
sible altogether to relinquish it. I may regret that the system was 
ever commenced; but as I cannot recall that act, T must submit to 
the inconvenience by which it is attended, rather than expose the 
country to evils of greater magnitude." Let it be remembered, 
sir that these are not the sentiments of a theorist, nor the fancies 
of speculation; but the operative opinions of the first minister of 
England, acknowledged to be one of the ablest and most practical 
statesmen of his country. Sir, gentlemen could have hardly been 
more unfortunate than in the selection of the silk manufacture in 
England, as an example of the beneficial efTects of that system 
which they would recommend. It is, in the language which I have 
quoted, completely artificial. It has been sustained by I know not 
how many laws, breaking in upon the plainest principles of general 
expediency. At the last session of Parliament, the manufacturers 
petitioned for the repeal of three or four of these statutes, -complain- 
ing of the vexatious restrictions which they impose on the wages of 
labor; setting fi)rth, that a great variety of orders has from time to 
time been issued by magistrates under the authority of these laws, 
interfering, in an oppressive manner, with the minutest details of the 
manufacture: such as limiting the number of threads to an inch; re- 
stricting the widths of many sorts of work; and determining the 
quantity of labor not to be exceeded without extra wages: that by 
the operation of these laws, the rate of wages, instead of being lefl 
to the recognised principles of regulation, has been arbitrarily fixed 
by persons whose ignorance renders them incompetent to a just de- 
cision; that masters are compelled by law to pay an equal price for 
all work, whether well or ill performed; and that they are totally 
prevented the use of improved machinery, it being ordered, that 
work, in the weaving of which machinery is employed, shall be paid 
precisely at the same rate as if done l)v hand; that these acts have 
frequently given rise to the most vexatious regulations, the uninten- 
tional l)reach of which has subjected manufacturers to ruinous penal- 
tics; and that, the introduction of all machinery being prevented, by 
which labor might be cheapened, and the manutacturers being ct>m- 
pelled to pay at a fixed price, under all circumstances, they are pre- 
vented from affording employment to their workmen, in times of stag- 
nation of trade, but are compelled to stop their looms. And Ihuilly^ 
they complain, that, notwithstanding these grievances under which 



279 

they labor, while carrying on their manufacture in London, the law 
still prohil)its them, while they continue to reside there, iVom employ- 
ing any portion of their capital in the same business lu luij Oi'^erpirt 
ot" the kingdom, where it might be more beneficially conducted. — 
Now, sir, absurd as these laws must appear to be to every man, the 
attempt to repeal them did not, as tar as I recollect, altogether suc- 
ceed. The weavers were too numerous, their interests too great, or 
their prejudices too strong; and this notable instance of protection 
and monopoly still exists, to be lamented in England with as much 
sincerity as it seems to be admired here. 

In order further to show the prevailing sentiment of the English 
government, I would refer to a report of a select committee of the 
House of Commons, at the head of which was the vice president of 
the board of trade, (Mr. Wallace) in July, 1820. " The time," say 
that committee, " when monopolies could be successfully supported, 
or would be patiently endured, either in respect to subjects against 
subjects, or particular countries against the rest of the world, seems 
to have passed away. Commerce, to continue undisturbed and 
secure, must be, as it was intended to be, a source of reciprocal 
amity between nations, and "an interchange of productions, to pro- 
mote the industry, the wealth, and the happiness, of mankind." In 
moving for the reappointment of the committee, in February, 1823, 
the same gentleman said; "We must also get rid of that feeling of 
appropriation, which exhibited itself in a disposition to produce 
everything necessary for our own consumption, and to render our- 
selves independent of the world. No notion could be more absurd 
or mischievous; it led, even in peace, to an animosity and rancor, 
greater than existed in time of war. Undoubtedly there would be 
great prejudices to combat, both in this country and elsewhere, in 
the attempt to remove the difficulties which are most obnoxious. It 
would be impossible to forget the attention which was in some re- 
spects due to the present system of protections; although that atten- 
tion ought certainly not to be carried beyond the absolute necessity 
of the case." And in a second report of the committee, drawn by 
the same gentleman, in that part of it which proposes a diminution of 
duties on timber from the north of Europe, and the policy of giving 
a legislative preference to the importation of such timber in the log, 
and a discouragement of the importation of deals, it is stated that 
the committee reject this policy, because, among other reasons, " it 
is founded on a principle of exclusion, which they are most averse 
to see brought into operation, in any nciv insfance, without the war- 
rant of some evident and great political expediency." And on many 
subsequent occasions, the same gentleman has taken occasion to ob- 
serve, that he differed from those who thought that manufactures 
could not flourish without restrictions on trade; that old prejudices 
of that sort were dying away, and that more liberal and just senti- 
ments were taking their place. These sentiments appear to have 
been followed by important legal provisions, calculated to remove 
restrictions and prohibitions, where they were most severely felt; 
that is to say, in several branches of navigation and trade. 

They have relaxed their colonial system, they have opened the 
ports of their islands, and have done away the restriction which limi- 



280 

ted the trade ot the colony to the mother country. Colonial products 
can now be carried directly trom the islands to any part of Europe; 
and it may not be improbable, considering our own high duties on 
spirits, that that article may be exchanged hereafter by the English 
West India colonies, directly, for the timber and deals of the Baltic. 

It may be added that Mr. Lowe, whom the gentleman has cited, 
says, that nobody supposes that the three great staples of English 
manufactures, cotton, woollen, and hardware, are benefited by any 
existing protecting duties; and that one object of all these protect- 
ing laws is usually overlooked, and that is, that they have been in- 
tended to reconcile the various interests to taxation: the corn law, 
for example, being designed as some equivalent to the agricultural 
interest for the burden of tithes and of poor rates. 

In fine, sir, I think it is clear, that, if we now embrace the system 
of prohibitions and restrictions, we shall show an affection for what 
others have discarded, and be attempting to ornament ourselves with 
cast offapparel.* 

Sir, I should not have gone into this prolix detail of opinions from 
any consideration of their special importance on the present occa- 
sion; but, having happened to state, that such v.as the actual opinion 
of the government of England at the present time, and the accuracy 
of this representation having been so confidently denied, I have cho- 
sen to put the matter beyond doubt or cavil, although at the expense 
of these tedious citations. I shall have occasion, hereafter, of refer- 
ring more particularly to sundry recent British enactments, by way 
of showing the diligence and spirit with which that government strives 
to sustain its navigating interest, by opening the widest possible range 
to the enterprise of individual adventurers. I repeat, that I have 
not alluded to these examples of a foreign state as being fit to con- 
trol our own policy. In the general principle, I acquiesce. Protec- 
tion, when carried to the point which is now recommended, that is, 
to entire prohibition, seems to me destructive of all commercial in- 
tercourse between nations. We are urged to adopt the system upon 
general principles; and what would be the consequence of the uni- 
versal application of such a general principle, but that nations would 
abstain entirely from all intercourse with one another? I do not ad- 
mit the general principle; on the contrary, I think freedom of trade 
to be the general principle, and restriction the exception. And it is 
for every state, taking into view its own condition, to judge of the 
propriety, in any case, of making an exception, constantly preferring, 
as I think all wise governments will, not to depart without urgent 
reason from the general rule. 

There is another point in the existing policy of England, to which 
I would most earnestly invite the attention of the Committee; I mean 
the warehouse system, or what we usually call the system o/ draw- 
back. Very great prejudices appear to me to exist with us on that 
subject. We seem averse to the extension of the principle. The 
English government, on the contrary, appear to have carried it to the 
extreme of liberality. They have arrived, however, at their present 
opinions, and present practice, by slow degrees. The transit sys- 
tem was commenced about the year 1803, but the first law was par- 

• Vide Note, page 260. 



281 

tial and limited. It admitted the importation of raw materials for 
exportation, but it excluded almost every sort of manufactured goods. 
This was done for the same reason that we propose to prevent the 
transit of Canadian wheat through the United States — the fear of 
aiding the competition of the foreign article with our own, in foreign 
markets. Better reflection, or more experience, has induced them 
to abandon that mode of reasoning, and to consider all such means 
of influencing foreign markets as nugatory: since, in the present ac- 
tive and enlightened state of the world, nations will supply themselves 
from the best sources, and the true policy of all producers, whether 
of raw materials, or of manufactured articles, is, not vainly to en- 
deavour to keep other venders out of the market, but to conquer them 
in it, by the quality and the cheapness of their articles. The present 
policy of England, therefore, is, to allure the importation of commo- 
dities into England, there to be deposited in English warehouses, 
thence to be exported in assorted cargoes, and thus enabling her to 
carry on a general export trade to all quarters of the globe. Arti- 
cles of all kinds, with the single exception of tea, may be brought 
into England, from any part of the world, in foreign as well as Bri-" 
tish ships, there warehoused, and again exported, at the pleasure of 
the owner, without the payment of any duty, or government charge 
whatever. 

While I am upon this subject, I would take notice also of the 
recent proposition in the English Parliament to abolish the tax on 
imported wool; and it is observable, that those who support this pro- 
position, give the same reasons as have been offered here, within the 
last week, against the duty which we propose on the same article. 
They say, that their manufacturers require a cheap and coarse wool, 
for the supply of the Mediterranean and Levant trade, and that, with- 
out a more free admission of the wool of the continent, that trade 
will all fall into the hands of the Germans and Italians, who will car- 
ry it on through Leghorn and Trieste. While there is this duty on 
foreign wool to protect the wool growers of England, there is on the 
other hand a prohibition on the exportation of the native article, in 
aid of the manufacturers. The opinion seems to be gaining strength, 
that the true policy is to abolish both. 

Laws have long existed in England, preventing the emigration of 
artisans, and the exportation of machinery; but the policy of these, 
also, has become doul)ted, and an inquiry has been instituted in Par- 
liament into the expediency of repealing them. As to the emigra- 
tion of artisans, say those who disapprove the laws, if that were 
desirable, no law could effect it; and as to the exportation of ma- 
chinery, let us fabricate and export it, as we would any other commod- 
ity. If France is determined to spin and weave her own cotton, let 
us, if we may, still have the benefit of furnishing the machinery. 

I have stated these things, sir, to show what seems to be the gen- 
eral tone of thinking and reasoning on these subjects in that country, 
the example of which has been so much pressed upon us. Whether 
the present policy of England be rigiit or wrong, wise or unwise, it 
cannot, as it seems clearly to me, be quoted as an authoritv for car- 
rying further the restrictive and exclusive system, either in regard to 
manufactures or trade. To reestablish a sound currency, to meet 
36 z* 



282 

at once the shock, tremendous as it was, of the fall of prices, to en- 
large her capacity for foreign trade, to open wide the field of indi- 
-vidual enterprise and competition, and to say, plainly and distinctly, 
that the country must relieve itself from the embarrassments which it 
felt, by economy, frugality, and renewed efforts of enterprise; these 
appear to be the general outline of the policy which England has 
pursued. 

Mr. Chairman: I will now proceed to say a few words upon a top- 
ic, but, for the introduction of which, into this debate, I should not 
have given the Committee, on this accasion, the trouble of hearing 
me. Some days ago, I believe it was when we were settling the 
controversy between the oil merchants and the tallowchandlers, the 
Balance of Truth made its appearance in debate, and I must confess, 
sir, that I spoke of it, or rather spoke to it, somewhat freely and ir- 
reverently. I believe I used the hard names which have been im- 
puted to me; and I did it simply for the purpose of laying the spectre, 
and driving it buck to its tomb. Certainly, sir, when I called the 
old notion on this subject nonsense, I did not suppose that I should 
"* oflcnd any one, unless the dead should happen to hear me. All the 
living generation, I took it for granted, would think the term very 
property applied. In this, however, I was mistaken. The dead 
and the living rise up together to call me to account, and I must de- 
fend myself as well as 1 am able. 

Let us inquire, then, sir, what is meant by an unfavorable balance 
of trade, and what the argument is, drawn from that source. By an 
unfavorable balance of trade, I understand, is meant that state of 
things in which importation exceeds exportation. To apply it to our 
own case, if the value of goods imported, exceed the value of those 
exported, then the balance of trade is said to be against us, inasmuch 
as we have run in debt to the amount of this difference. Therefore, 
it is said, that, if a nation continue long in a commerce like this, it 
must be rendered absolutely bankrupt. It is in the condition of a 
man that buys more than he sells; and how can such a traffic be main- 
tained without ruin? Now, sir, the whole fallacy of this argument 
consists in supposing that, whenever the value of imports exceeds 
that of exports, a debt is necessarily created to the extent of the dif- 
ference: whereas, ordinarily, the import is no more than the result of 
the export, augmented in value by the labor of transportation. The 
excess of imports over exports, in truth, usually shows the gains, not 
the losses, of trade ; or, in a country that not only buys and sells goods, 
but employs ships in carrying goods also, it shows the profits of com- 
merce, and the earnings of navigation. Nothing is more certain than 
that m the usual course of things, and taking a series of years togeth- 
er, the value of our imports is the aggregate of our exports and our 
freights. If the value of commodities, imported in a given case, did 
not exceed the value of the outward cargo, -with which they were 
purchased, then it would be rlear to every man's common sense, that 
the voyage had not been profitable. If such commodities fell far short 
in value of the cost of the outward cargo, then the voyage would be a 
very losing one; and yet it would present exactly that state of 
things, which, according to the notion of a. balance of trade, can alone 
indicate a prosperous commerce. On the other hand, if the return 



283 

CJirgo were found to be worth much more than the outward cargo, 
while the merchant, having paid tor the goods exported, and all the 
expenses of the voyage, tinds a handsome sum yet in his hands, which 
he calls profits, the balance of' trade is still against him, and whatever 
he may think of it, he is in a very bad way. Although one individ- 
ual, or all individuals gain, the nation loses; while all its citizens 
grow rich, the country grows poor. This is the doctrine of the bal- 
ance oj trade. Allow me, sir, to give an instance tending to show 
how unaccountably individuals deceive themselves, and imagine 
themselves to be somewhat rapidly mending their condition, while 
they ought to be persuaded that, by that infallible standard, the bal- 
ance of trade, they are on the high road to ruin. Some years ago, 
in better times than the present, a ship \el\ one of the towns of 
New England with 70,000 specie dollars. She proceeded to Mocha, 
on the Red Sea, and there laid out these dollars in coffee, drugs, 
spices, &c. With this new cargo she proceeded to Europe; two- 
thirds of it were sold in Holland for ^130,000, which the ship brought 
back, and placed in the same Bank, from the vaults of which she 
had taken her original outfit. The other third was sent to the ports 
of the Mediterranean, and produced a return of 25,000 dollars in spe- 
cie, and 15,000 dollars in Italian merchandise. These sums togeth- 
er make 170,000 dollars imported, which is 100,000 dollars more 
than was exported, and is therefore proof of an unfavorable balance 
of trade, to that amount, in this adventure. We should find no great 
difficulty, sir, in paying off our balances if this were the nature of 
them all. 

The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that all these obsolete and exploded 
notions had their origin in very mistaken ideas of the true nature of 
commerce. Commerce is not a gambling among nations for a stake, 
to be won by some and lost by others. It has not the tendency ne- 
cessarily to impoverish one of the parties to it, while it enriches the 
other; all parties gain, all parties make profits, all parties grow rich, 
by the operations of just and liberal commerce. If the world had 
but one clime, and but one soil; if all men had the same wants and 
the same means, on the spot of their existence, to gratify those 
wants; then, indeed, what one obtained from the other by exchange, 
would injure one party in the same degree that it benefited the other; 
then, indeed, there would be some foundation for the balance of 
trade. But Providence has disposed our lot much more kindly. 
We inhabit a various earth. We have reciprocal wants, and recip- 
rocal means for gratifying one another's wants. This is the true 
origin of commerce, which is nothing more than an exchange of 
equivalents, and from the rude barter of its primitive state, to the 
refined and complex condition in which we see it, its principle is 
uniformly the same; its only object being, in every stage, to produce 
that exchange of commodities between individuals and between na- 
tions, which shall conduce to the advantage and to the happiness of 
both. Commerce between nations has the same essential character, 
as commerce between individuals, or between parts of the same na- 
tion. Cannot two individuals make an interchange of commodities 
which shall prove beneficial to both, or in which the balance of trade 
shall be in favor of both.^ If not, the tailor and the shoemaker, the 



284 

farmer and the smith, have hitherto very much misunderstood their 
own interest. And with regard to the internal trade of a country, 
in wliich the same rule would apply as between nations, do we ever 
speak of such an intercourse being prejudicial to one side because 
it is useful lo the other? Do we ever hear that, because the inter- 
course between New York and Albany is advantageous to one of 
those places, it must therefore be ruinous to the other? 

IMay I be allowed, sir, to read a passage on this subject from the 
observations of a gentleman, in my opinion one of the most clear and 
sensible writers and speakers of the age upon subjects of this sort?* 
" There is no political question on which the prevalence of false 
principles is so general, as in what relates to the nature of commerce 
and to the pretended bdlance of trade ; and there are few which have 
led to a greater number of practical mistakes, attended with conse- 
quences extensively prejudicial to the happiness of mankind. In 
this country, our parliamentary proceedings, our public documents, 
and the works of several able and popular writers, have combined 
to propagate the impression that we are indebted for much of our 
riches to what is called the balance of trade.'''' " Our true policy 
would surely be to profess, as the object and guide of our com- 
mercial system, that which every man who has studied the subject, 
must know to be the true principle of commerce, the interchange of 
reciprocal and equivalent benefit. We may rest assured that it is not 
in the nature of commerce to enrich one party at -the expense of the 
other. This is a purpose at which, if it were practicable, we ought 
not to aim; and which, if we aimed at, we could not accomplish." 
These remarks, I believe, sir, were written some ten or twelve years 
ago. They are in perfect accordance with the opinions advanced 
in more elaborate treatises, and now that the world has returned to 
a state of peace, and commerce has resumed its natural channels, 
and different nations are enjoying, or seeking to enjoy, their respec- 
tive portions of it, all see the justness of these ideas; all see, that, 
in this day of knowledge and of peace, there can be no commerce 
between nations but that which shall benetit all who are parties to it. 

If it were necessary, Mr. Chairman, I might ask the attention of 
the Committee to recur to a document before us, on this subject, of 
the balance of trade. It will be seen by reference to the accounts, 
that, in the course of the last year, our total export to Holland ex- 
ceeded two millions and a half ; our total import from the same coun- 
try was but 700,000 dollars. Now can any man be wild enough to 
mak«'. any inference from this of the gain or loss of our trade with 
Holland "for that year? Our trade with Russia for the same year, 
produced a balance the other way; our import being two millions, 
and our export but iialf a million. " But this has no more tendency to 
show the Russian trade a losing trade, than the other statement has 
to show that the Dutch trade has been a gainful one. Neither of 
them, by itself", proves anything. 

S|)ringing out of this notion of a balance of trade, there has been 

another idea, which has been much dwelt upon in the course of this 

debate; that is, that we ought not to buy of nations who do not buy of 

us; for example, that the Russian trade is a trade disadvantageous to 

* Mr. Huskisson, President of the English Board of Trade. 



285 

the country, and ought to be discouraged, because, in the ports of 
Russia, we buy more than we sell. Now allow me to observe, in the 
first place, sir, that we have no account showing how much we do sell 
in the ports of Russia. Our official returns show us only what is the 
amount of our direct exports to her ports. But then we all know 
that the proceeds of other of our exports goto the same market, though 
indirectly. We send our own products, for example, to Cuba, or to 
Brazil; we there exchange them for the sugar and the coffee of those 
countries, and these articles we carry to St. Petersburg, and there sell 
them. Again; our exports to Holland and Hamburg are connected 
directly or indirectly with our imports from Russia. What difference 
does it make, in sense or reason, whether a cargo of iron be bought 
at St. Petersburg by the exchange of a cargo of tobacco, or whether 
the tobacco has been sold on the way, in a better market, in a port 
of Holland, the money remitted to England, and the iron paid for by 
a bill on London? There might indeed have been an augmented 
freight, there might have been some saving of commissions, if tobac- 
co had been in brisk demand in the Russian market. But still there 
is nothing to show that the whole voyage may not have been highly 
profitable. That depends upon the original cost of the article here, 
the amount of freight and insurance to Holland, the price obtained 
there, the rate of exchange between Holland and England; the ex- 
pense, then, of proceeding to St. Petersburg, the price of iron there, 
the rate of exchange between that place and England, the amount 
of freight and insurance home, and finally, the value of the iron, 
when brought to our own market. These are the calculations which 
determine the fortune of the adventure; and nothing can be judged 
of it,' one way or the other, by the relative state of our imports or ex- 
ports with Holland, England, or Russia. 

I would not be understood to deny that it may often be our interest 
to cultivate a trade with countries that most require such commodi- 
ties as we can furnish, and which are capable also of directly sup- 
plying our own wants. This is the simplest and most original form 
of all commerce, and is, no doubt, highly beneficial. And some 
countries are so situated, doubtless, that commerce, in this original 
form, or something near it, may be all that they can, without consid- 
erable inconvenience, carry on. Our trade, for example, with Ma- 
deira and the Western Islands, has been useful to the country as 
furnishing a demand for some portion of our agricultural products, 
which probably could not have been bought, had we not received 
their products in return. Countries situated still farther from the 
great marts and highways of the commercial world, may afford still 
stronger instances of the necessity and utility of conducting com- 
merce on the original principle of barter, without much assistance 
from the o])erations of credit and exchange. All I would be under- 
stood to say is, that it by no means follows that that must be a losing 
trade with any country, from which we receive more of her products 
than she receives of ours. And since I was supposed the other day, 
in speaking upon this sul)iect, to have advanced opinions which not 
only this country ought to reject, but v/hich also other countries, and 
those the most distinguished for skill and success in commercial in- 
tercourse, do reject, I will ask leave to refer again to the discussion 



286 

which I first mentioned in the English Parliament, relative to tho 
foreign trade of that country. " With regard," says the mover* of 
the proposition, " to the argument employed against renewing our 
intercourse with the north of Europe, namely, that those who supplied 
us with timber from that quarter would not receive British manufac- 
tures in return, it appeared to him futile and ungrounded. If they 
did not send direct for our manufactures at home, they would send 
for them to Leipsic and other fairs of Germany. Were not the 
Russian and Polish merchants purchasers there to a great amount? 
But he would never admit the principle, that a trade was not profit- 
able, because we were obliged to carry it on with the precious met- 
als, or that we ought to renounce it, because our manufactures were 
not received by the foreign nation, in return for its produce. Wha* 
ever we received must be paid for in the produce of our land 
>bor, directly or circuitoivgly, and he was glad to have the n, 
urst marked concurrence in this principle." 

Referring ourselves again, sir, to the analogies of common life, no 
one would say, that a farmer or a mechanic should buy o»//y where he 
can do so by the exchange of his own produce, or of his own manu- 
facture. Such exchange may be often convenient; and, on the other 
hand, the cash purchase may be often more convenient. It is the same 
in the intercourse of nations. Indeed, Mr. Speaker has placed this 
argument on very clear grounds. It has been said, in'the early part 
of the debate, that if we cease to import English cotton fabrics, Eng- 
land would no longer continue to purchase our cotton. To this, Mr. 
Speaker has replied, with great force and justice, that, as she must 
have cotton in large quantities, she will buy the article where she can 
find it best and cheapest; and that it would be quite ridiculous in her, 
manufacturing as she still would be, for her own vast consumption, 
and the consumption of millions in other countries, to reject our 
uplands because we had learned to manufacture a part of them for 
ourselves. And would it not be equally ridiculous in us, if the com- 
modities of Russia were both cheaper, and better suited to our wants, 
than could be found elsewhere, to abstain from commerce with her, 
because she will not receive, in return, other commodities which we 
have to sell, but which she has no occasion to buy? 

Intimately connected, sir, with this topic, is another, which has been 
brought into the debate; I mean, the evil so much complained of — the 
exportation of specie. We hear gentlemen imputing the loss of 
market at home to a want of money, and this want of money to the 
exportation of the precious metals. We hear the India and China 
trade denounced, as a commerce conducted on our side, in a great 
measure, with gold and silver. These opinions, sir, are clearly void 
of all just foundation, and we cannot too soon get rid of them. There 
are no .shallower reasoners, than those political and commercial 
writers, who would represent it to be the only true and gainfial end of 
commerce, to accumulate the precious metals. These are articles of 
use, and articles of merchandise, with this additional circumstance 
belonaing to tliem, that they are made, by the general consent of na- 
tions, the standard by which the value of all other merchandise is to 
be estimated. In regard to weights and measures, something drawn 
* MHniuisj of Laiisdowne. t Lord Liverpool. 



287 

from external nature is made a common standard, for the purposes of 
general convenience; and this is precisely the othce perfornied by 
the precious metals, in addition to those uses to which, as metals, they 
are capable of being applied. There may be of these, too much or 
too liitle, in a country, at a particular time, as there may be of any 
other articles. When the market is overstocked with them, as it 
often is, their exportation becomes as proper and as useful as that of 
other commodities, under similar circumstances. We need no more 
repine, when the dollars, which have been brought here from South 
America, are despatched to other countries, than when coffee and su- 
gar take the same direction. We often deceive ourselves by attribu- 
ting to a scarcity of money, that which is the result of other causes. 
In the course of this debate, the honoralile member from Pennsyl- 
vania has represented the country as full of everything but money. 
But this, I take to be a mistake. The agricultural products, so 
abundant in Pennsylvania, w"ill not, he says, sell for money; but they 
will sell for money as quick as for any other article Avhich happens to 
be in demand. They will sell for money, for example, as easily as 
for coffee, or for tea, at the prices which properly belong to those 
articles. The mistake lies in imputing that to want of money, which 
arises from want of demand. Men do not buy wheat because they 
have money, but because they want wheat. To decide whether 
money be plenty or not, that is, whether there be a large portion 
of capital unemployed or not, when the currency of a country is 
metallic, we must look, not only to the prices of commodities, 
but also to the rate of interest. A low rate of interest, a facility of 
obtaining money on loans, a disposition to invest in permanent 
stocks, all of which are proofs that money is plenty, may neverthe- 
less often denote a state not of the highest prosperity. They 
may, and often do, show a want of employment for capital; and 
the accumulation of specie shows the same thing. We have no 
occasion for the precious metals as money, except for the purposes 
of circulation, or rather of sustaining a safe paper circulation. 
And whenever there be a prospect of a profitable investment abroad, 
all the gold and silver, except what these purposes require, will 
be exported. For the same reason, if a demand exist abroad for 
sugar and coffee, whatever amount of those articles might exist in 
the country, beyond the wants of its own consumption, would 
be sent abroad to meet that demand. Besides, sir, how should it 
ever occur to anybody, that we should continue to export gold 
and silver, if we did not continue to import tliem also? If a vessel 
take our own products to the Havana, or elsewhere, exchange them 
for dollars, proceed to China, exchange them for silks and teas, 
bring these last to the ports of the Mediterranean, sell them there 
for dollars, and return to the United States; this would be a voyage 
resulting in the importation of the precious metals. But if she had 
returned from Cuba, and the dollars obtained there had been ship- 
ped direct from the United States to China, the China goods sold 
in Holland, and the proceeds brought home in the hemp and iron of 
Russia, this would be a voyage in which they were exported. Yet 
everybody sees, that both might be equally l)eneficial to tlie individ- 
uals and to the pubhc. I believe, sir, that, in point of fact, we have 



288 

enjoyed great benefit in our trade with India and Chinfi, from the 
liberty oif ffoinff from place to place all over the world, without being 
obliged in the meantime, to return home — a liberty not heretofore 
enjoyed by the private traders of England, in regard to India and 
China. Suppose the American ship to be at Brazil, for example — 
she could proceed with her dollars direct to India, and, in return, 
could distribute her cargo in all the various ports of Europe, or 
America: while an English ship, if a private trader, being at Brazil, 
must first return to England, and then could only proceed in the di- 
rect line from England to India. This advantage, our countrymen 
have not been backward to improve; and in the debate to which I 
have already so often referred, it was stated, not without some com- 
plaint of the inconvenience of exclusion, and the natural sluggish- 
ness of monopoly, that American ships were at that moment fitting 
out in the Thames, to supply France, Holland, and other countries 
on the continent, with tea; while the East India Company would 
not do this of themselves, nor allow any of their fellow countrymen 
to do it for them. 

There is yet another subject, Mr. Chairman, upon which I would 
wish to say something, if I might presume upon the continued pa- 
tience of the Committee. We hear, sometimes, in the House, and 
continually out of it, of the rate of exchange, as being one proof 
that we are on the downward road to ruin. Mr. Speaker himself 
has adverted to that topic, and I am afraid that his authority may 
give credit to opinions clearly unfounded, and which lead to very 
false and erroneous conclusions. Sir, let us see what the facts are. 
Exchange on England has recently risen one or one and a half per 
cent., partly owing, perhaps, to the introduction of this bill into Con- 
gress. Before this recent rise, and for the last six months, I under- 
stand its average may have been about seven and a half per cent, 
advance. Now, supposing this to be the real, and not merely, as it 
is, the nominal par of excliange, between us and England, what 
would it prove .? Nothing, except that funds were wanted, in Eng- 
land, for commercial operations, to be carried on either in England 
or elsewhere. It would not necessarily show that we were indebted 
to England: for, if we had occasion to pay debts in Russia or Hol- 
land, funds in England would naturally enough be required for such 
a purpose. And even if it did prove that a balance was due Eng- 
land, at the moment, it would have no tendency to expJam to us 
whether our commerce with England had been profitable or unprofit- 
able. But it is not true, in point of fact, that the real price of ex- 
change is seven and a half per cent, advcuice, nor, indeed, that there 
is, at^the present moment, any advance at all. That is to say, it is 
not true, that merchants will give such an advance, or any advance, 
for moueij in England, more than ihey would give for the same amount, 
in the same currency, here. It will strike every one, who reflects 
upon it, that, if there were a real difference of seven and a half per 
cent, money would be immediately shipped to England; because the 
expense of transportation would be far less than that difference. Or, 
commodities of trade would !)e shipped to Europe, and the proceeds 
remitted to England. If it could so happen, that American merchants 
should be willing to pay ten per cent, premium for money in England, 



289 

or, in other words, that a real difTerence to that amount, in the ex- 
change, should exist, its effects would be immediately seen in new 
shipments of our own commodities to Europe, because this state of 
things would create new motives. A cargo of tobacco, for example, 
might sell at Amsterdam for the same price as before; but if its pro- 
ceeds, when remitted to London, were advanced, as they would he 
in such case, ten per cent, by the state of exchange, this would he 
so much added to the price, and would operate, tlierefore, as a mo- 
tive for the exportation; and in this way, national balances are, and 
always will be, adjusted. 

To form any accurate idea of the true state of exchange, between 
two countries, we must look at their currencies, and compare the 
quantities of gold and silver which they may respectively represent. 
This usually explains the state of the exchanges; and this will snlis- 
factorily account for the apparent advance, now existing, on bills 
drawn on England. The English standard of value is gold: with us, 
that office is performed by gold, and by silver also, at a tixed relation 
to each other. But our estimate of silver is rather higher, in pro- 
portion to gold, than most nations give it; it is higher, especially, than 
in England, at the present moment. The consequence is, that silver, 
which remains a legal currency with us, stays here, while the gold 
has gone abroad; verifying the universal truth, that, if two curren- 
cies be allowed to exist, of different values, that which is cheapest 
will fill up the whole circulation. For as much gold as will suthce 
to pay here a debt of a given amount, we can buy in England more 
silver than would be necessary to pay the same debt here; and from 
this difference in the value of silver arises wholly, or in a great 
measure, the present apparent difference in exchange. Spanish 
dollars sell now, in England, for four shillings and nine pence sterl- 
ing per ounce; equal to one dollar and six cents. By our standard, 
the same ounce is worth one dollar and sixteen cents; being a differ- 
ence of about nine per cent. The true par of exchange, therefore, 
is nine per cent. If a merchant here pay one hundred Spanish 
dollars for a bill on England, at nominal par, in sterling money, that 
is, for a bill for £'2'2 10, the proceeds of this bill, when paid in Eng- 
land, in the legal currency, will there purchase, at the present price 
of silver, one hundred and nine Spanish dollars. Therefore, if the 
nominal advance on English bills do not exceed nine pe cent, the 
real exchange is not against this country; in other words, it does not 
show that there is any pressing or particular occasion for the remit- 
tance of funds to England. 

As little can be inferred from the occasional transfer of United 
States' stock to England. Considering' the interest paid on our 
stocks, the entire stability of our credit, and the accumulation of cap- 
ital in England, it is not at all wonderful that investments should 
occasionally be made in our funds. As a sort of countervailing fact, 
it may be stated that English stocks are now actually holden in this 
country, though probably not to any considerable amount. 

I will now proceed, sir, to state some objections which I feel, of a 
more general nature, to the course of Mr. Speaker's observations. 

He seein^ to me to argue the que. lion ;is if all domestic industry 
were confined to the production of manufactured articles; as if the 
37 AA 



290 

employment of our own capital, and our own labor, in the occupations 
of commerce and navigation, were not as emphatically domestic in- 
dustry as any other occupation. Some other gentlemen, in the 
course of the debate, have spoken of the price paid for every foreign 
manufactured article, as so much given for the encouragement of 
foreigu labor, to the prejudice of our own. But is not every such 
article the product of our own labor as truly as if we had manufac- 
tured it ourselves? Our labor has earned it, and paid the price for 
it. It is so much added to the stock of national wealth. If the com- 
modity were dollars, nobody would doubt the truth of this remark; 
and it is precisely as correct in its application to any other commodity 
as to silver. One man makes a yard of cloth at home; another raises 
agricultural products, and buys a yard of imported cloth. Both these 
are equally the earnings of domestic industry, and the only questions 
that arise in the case are two: the first is, which is the best mode, 
under all the circumstances, of obtaining the article; the second is, 
how far this first question is proper to be decided by government, and how 
far it is proper to be left to individual discretion. There is no foundation 
for the distinction which attributes to certain employments the pecu- 
liar appellation of American industry; and it is, in my judgment, ex- 
tremely unwise, to attempt such discriminations. We are asked 
what nations have ever attained eminent prosperity without encour- 
aging manufactures.^ I may ask, what nation ever reached the like 
prosperity without promoting foreign trade? I regard these interests 
as closely connected, and am of opinion that it should be our aim to 
cause them to flourish together. I know it would be very easy to 
promote manufactures, at least for a time, but probably only for a 
short time, if we might act in disregard of other interests. We could 
cause a sudden transfer of capital, and a violent change in the pur 
suits of men. We could exceedingly benefit some classes by these 
means. But what, then, becomes of the interests of others? The 
power of collecting revenue by duties on imports, and the habit of 
the government of collecting almost its whole revenue in that mode, 
will enable us, without exceeding the bounds of moderation, to give 
great advantages to those classes of manufactures which we may 
think most useful to promote at home. W^hat I object to is the im- 
moderate use of the power — exclusions and prohibitions; all of 
which, as I think, not only interrupt the pursuits of individuals, with 
great injury to themselves, and little or no benefit to the country, 
but also often divert our own labor, or, as it may very properly be 
called, our own domestic industry, from those occupations in which 
it is well employed and well paid, to others, in which it will be worse 
employed, and worse paid. For my part, I see very little relief to 
those who are likely to be deprived of their employments, or who 
find the prices of the commodities which they need, raised, in any 
of the alternatives which Mr. S|)eaker has presented. It is nothing 
to sav that they may, if tl.ey choose, continue to buy the foreign 
article; the answer is, the price is augmented: nor that they may 
use the domestic article; the price of that also is increased. Nor 
can tiiev supply themselves by the su])stitution of their own fabric. 
How ciin llu! agriculturist n)ake his own iron? How can the ship 
owner grow his own hemp? 



291 

But I have a yet stronger objection to the course of Mr. Speak^* 
er's reasoning; which is, that he leaves out of the case all that has 
been already done for the protection of manufactures, and argues 
the question as if those interests were now, for the first time, to re- 
ceive aid from duties on imports. I can hardly express the surprise 
I feel that Mr. Speaker should fall into the common modes of ex- 
piession used elsewhere, and ask if we will give our manufacturers 
no protection. Sir, look to the history of our laws; look to the 
present state of our laws. Consider that our whole revenue, with 
a trifling exception, is collected at the custom-house, and always 
has been; and then say what propriety there is in calling on the 
government for protection, as if no protection had heretofore been 
afforded. The real question before us, in regard to all the im- 
portant clauses of the bill, is not whether we will laij duties, but 
whether we will augmetU. duties. The demand is for something more 
than exists, and yet it is pressed as if nothing existed. It is wholly 
forgotten that iron and hemp, for example, already pay a very heavy 
and burdensome duty; and, in short, from the general tenor of 
Mr. Speaker's observations, one would infer that, hitherto, we had 
rather taxed our own manufactures than fostered them by taxes on 
those of other countries. We hear of the fatal policy of the tariff 
of 1816; and yet the law of 1816 was passed avowedly for the 
benefit of manufacturers, and, with very few exceptions, imposed 
on imported articles very great additions of tax; in some important 
instances, indeed, amounting to a prohibition^ 

Sir, on this subject it becomes us at least to understand the real 
posture of the question. Let us not suppose that we are bei^innmg 
the protection of manufactures, by duties on imports. What we 
are asked to do is, to render those duties much higher, and there- 
fore, instead of dealing in general commendations of the benefits 
of protection, the friends of the bill, I think, are bound to make out 
a fair case for each of the manufactures which they propose to ben- 
efit. The government has already done much for their protection, 
and it ought to be presumed to have done enough, unless it be 
shown, by the facts and considerations applicable to each, that there 
is a necessity for doing more. 

On the general question, sir, allow me to ask if the doctrine of 
prohibition, as a general doctrine, be not preposterous.' Suppose 
all nations to act upon it; they would be prosperous, then, accord- 
ing to the argument, precisely in the proportion in which they abol- 
ished intercourse with one another. The less of mutual commerce 
the better, upon this hypothesis. Protection and encouragement 
may be, and are, doubtless, sometimes, wise and beneficial, if kept 
within proper limits; but, when carried to an extravagant height, or 
the point of prohibition, the absurd character of the system mani- 
fests itself, Mr. Speaker has referred to the late Emperor Napo- 
leon, as having attempted to naturalize the manufacture of cotton 
in France. He did not cite a more extravagant part of the projects 
of that ruler, that is, his attempt to naturalize the growth of that 
plant itself in France; whereas, we have understood that consider- 
able districts in the south of France, and in Italy, of rich and pro- 
ductive lauds, were at one time withdrawn from profitable uses, and 



292 

devoted to raising, at great expense, a little bad cotton. Nor have 
we been referred to the attempts, under the same system, to make 
suoar and coffee from common culinary vegetables; attempts which 
served to fill the print shops of Europe, and to show us how easy 
is the transition from what some think sublime, to that which all 
admit to be ridiculous. The folly of some of these projects has 
not been surpassed, nor hardly equalled, unless it be by the philo- 
sopher in one of the satires of Swift, who so long labored to extract 
sunbeams from cucumbers.* 

The poverty and unhappiness of Spain have been attributed to the 
want of protection to her own industry. If by this it be meant that 
the poverty of Spain is owing to bad government and bad laws, the 
remark is, in a great measure, just. But these very laws are bad 
because they are restrictive, partial, and prohibitory. If prohibition 
were protection, Spain would seem to have had enough of it. ]\o- 
thing can exceed the barbarous rigidity of her colonial system, or the 
folly of her early commercial regulations. Unenlightened and big- 
oted legislation, the multitude of holydays, miserable roads, monop- 
olies on the part of government, restrictive laws, that ought long 
since to have been abrogated, are generally, and I believe truly, 
reckoned the principal causes of the bad state of the productive 
industry of Spain. Any partial improvement in her condition, or 
increase of her prosperity, has been, in all cases, the result of 
relaxation, and the aboHtion of what was intended for favor and 
protection. 

In short, sir, the general sense of this age sets, with a strong cur- 
rent, in favor of freedom of commercial intercourse, and unrestrain- 
ed individual action. Men yield up their notions of monopoly and 
restriction, as they yield up other prejudices, slowly and reluctantly; 
but they cannot withstand the general tide of opinion. 

Let me now ask, sir, what relief this bill proposes to some of those 
great and essential interests of the country, the condition of which 
has been referred to as proof of national distress; and which condi- 
tion, althouiih I do not think it makes out a case of distress, yet does 
indicate depression. 

And first, sir, as to our Foreign Trade. Mr. Speaker has stated 
that there has been a considerable falling off in the tonnage employed 
in that trade. This is true, lamentably true. In my opinion, it is 
one of those occurrences which ought to arrest our immediate, our 
deep, our most earnest attention. What does this bill propose for 
its relief? Sir, it proposes nothing but new burdens. It proposes 
to diminish its employment, and it proposes, at the same time, to aug- 
ment its expense, by subjecting it to heavier taxation. Sir, there is 
no interest, in regard to which a stronger case for protection can be 
made out, than the navigating interest. Whether we look at its 

* " The first man I saw was of a rieagre aspect, willi sooty hands and fare. His hair 
and beard long, l•aJ^^'cd, ami singed in several phices. His clothes, shirt, and skni, were 
all of the same color. He had been eight years npon a project for extracting sunbeams 
out of cucumbers, which were to be put into phials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm 
the air, in raw and inclement summers. He told me, he did not doubt, in eight years more, 
he .should be able to supply the Governor's gardens with sunshine, at a reasonable rate; but 
he complainel that his stdck was low, and entreati d me to give him something as an en- 
couragement to ingenuity, especially as tliis h.ul been a dear season for cucumbei.s." 



293 

present condition, which is admitted to be depressed; the number of 
persons connected with it, and dependent upon it tor their daily 
bread; or its importance to the country in a political point of view, 
it has claims upon our attention which cannot be exceeded. 13ut 
what do we propose to do for it? I repeat, sir, simply to burden and 
to tax it. By a statement which I have already submitted to the 
Committee, it appears that the shipping interest pays, annually, more 
than half a million of dollars in duties on articles used in the con- 
struction of ships. We propose to add nearly, or quite, fifty per 
cent, to this amount, at the very moment that we bring forth the lan- 
guishing state of this interest, as a proof of national distress. Let 
it be remembered that our shipping employed in foreign commerce, 
has, at this moment, not the shadow of government protection. It 
goes abroad upon the wide sea to make its own way, and earn its own 
bread, in a professed competition with the whole world. Its resour- 
ces are its own frugality, its own skill, its own enterprise. It hopes 
to succeed, if it shall succeed at all, not by extraordinary aid of gov- 
ernment, but by patience, vigilance, and toil. This right arm of 
the nation's safety strengthens its own muscle by its own efforts, 
and by unwearied exertion in its own defence becomes strong for the 
defence of the country. 

No one acquainted with this interest, can deny that its situation, at 
this moment, is extremely critical. We have left it hitherto to main- 
tain itself or perish; to swim if it can, and to sink if it cannot. But at 
this moment of its apparent struggle, can we, as men, can we, as 
patriots, add another stone to the weight that threatens to carry it 
down? Sir, there is a limit to human power, and to human etibrt. 
1 know the commercial marine of this country can do almost every- 
thing, and bear almost everything. Yet some things are impossible 
to be done; and some burdens may be impossible to be borne; and 
as it was the last ounce that broke the back of the camel, so the last 
tax, although it were even a small one, may be decisive as to the 
power of our marine, to sustain the conflict in which it is now en- 
gaged, with all the commercial nations on the globe. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, the failures and the bankruptcies which have 
taken place in our large cities, have been menti'med as proving the 
little success attending commerce, and its general decline. But this 
bill has no balm for those wounds. It is very remarkable, that, when 
losses and disasters of certain manufacturers, those of iron, tor in- 
stance, are mentioned, it is done for the purpose of invoking aid tor 
the distressed. Not so with the losses and disasters of commerce; 
these last are narrated, and not unfrequently much exaggerated, to 
prove the ruinous nature of the employment, and to show that it 
ought to be abandoned, and the capital engaged in it turned to other 
objects. 

It has been often said, sir, that our manufactures have to contend, 
not only against the natural advantages of those who produce similar 
articles in foreign countries, but also against the action of foreign 
governments, who have great political interest in aiding their own 
manufactures to suppress ours. But have not these governments as 
great an interest to cripple our mnriue, by preventing the growth of 
our commerce and navigation? What is it that makes us the object 



294 

of the highest respect, or the most suspicious jealousy, to foreign, 
states? What is it that most enables us to take high relative rank 
among the nations? I need not say that this results, more than from 
anything else, from that quantity of military power which we caa 
cause to be water borne, and of that extent of commerce, which we 
are able to maintain throughout the world. 

Mr. Chairman, I am conscious of having detained the Committee, 
much too long with these observations. My apology for now proceed- 
ing to some remarks upon the particular clauses of the Bill, is, that, 
representing a district, at once commercial and highly manufacturing, 
and being called upon to vote upon a Bill, containing provisions so 
numerous, and so various, I am naturally desirous to state as well 
what I approve, as what I would reject. 

The first section proposes an augmented duty upon woollen manu- 
factures. This, if it were un(iualified, would no doubt be desirable 
to those who are engaged in that business. I have myself presented 
a petition from the woollen manufacturers of Massachusetts, praying 
an augmented ad valorem duty upon imported woollen cloths; and I am 
prepared to accede to that proposition, to a reasonable extent. But 
then this Bill proposes, also, a very high duty upon imported wool; 
and, as far as I can learn, a majority of the marmfacturers are at least 
extremely doubtful whether, taking these two provisions together, the 
state of the law is not better for them now, than it would be if this 
Bill should pass. It is said, this tax on raw wool will benefit the agri- 
culturist; but I know it to be the opinion of some of the best inform- 
ed of that class, that it will do them more hurt than good. They 
fear it will check the manufacturer, and consequently check his 
demand for their article. The argument is, that a certain quantity 
of coarse wool, cheaper than we can possibly furnish, is necessary 
to enable the manufacturer to carry on the general business, and 
that if this cannot be had, the consequence will be, not a greater, 
but a less, manufacture of our own wool. I am aware that very 
intelligent persons differ upon this point; but, if we may safely infer 
from that difference of opinion, that the proposed benefit is at least 
doubtful, it would be prudent perhaps to abstain from the experi- 
ment. Certain it is, that the same course of reasoning has occurred, 
as I have before stated, on the same subject, when a renewed appli- 
cation was made to the English Parliament to repeal the duty on 
imported wool, I believe scarcely two months ago; those who support 
the application, pressing urgently the necessity of an unrestricted 
use of the cheap, imported raw material, with a view to supply, with 
coarse cloths, the markets of warm climates, such as those of Egypt 
and Turkey, and especially a vast new created demand in the South 
American states. 

As to the manufactures of cotton, it is agreed, I believe, that they 
are generally successful. It is understood that the present existing 
duty operates pretty much as a prohibition over those descriptions of 
fabrics to which it applies. The proposed alteration would probably 
enable the American manufacturer to commence competition with 
higher priced fabrics; and so would, perhaps, an augmentation less 
than is here proposed. I consider the cotton manufactures not only 
to have reached, but to have passed, the point of competition. I re- 



295 

gard their success as certain, and their growth as rapid as the most ' 
impatient could well expect. If, however, a provision of the nature 
of that recommended here, were thought necessary to commence new 
operations in the same line of manufacture, I should cheerfully agree 
to it, if it were not at the cost of sacriticing other great interests of 
the country. I need hardly say, that whatever promotes the cotton 
and woollen manufactures, promotes most important interests of my 
constituents. They have a great stake in the success of those estab- 
lishments, and as far as those manufactures are concerned, would be 
as much benefited by the provisions of this bill, as any part of the 
community. It is obvious too, I should think, that, for some consid- 
erable time, manufactures of this sort, to whatever magnitude they 
may rise, will be principally established in those parts of the country 
where population is most dense, capital most abundant, and where 
the most successful beginnings have been already made. 

But if these be thought to be advantages, they are greatly counter- 
balanced by other advantages enjoyed by other portions of the coun- 
try. I cannot but regard the situation of the West, as highly favor- 
able to human happiness. Jt offers, in the abundance of its new and 
fertile lands, such assurances of permanent property and respecta- 
bility to the industrious, it enables them to lay such sure foundations 
for a competent provision for their families, it makes such a nation 
of freeholders, that it need not envy the happiest and most prosperous 
of the manufacturing communities. We may talk as we will of 
well fed and well clothed daylaborers or journeymen; they are not, 
after all, to be compared, either for happiness, or respectability^ with 
him who sleeps under his own roof, and cultivates his own feesimple 
inheritance. 

With respect to the proposed duty on Glass, I would observe, that, 
upon the best means of judging which I possess, I am of opinion, 
that the Chairman of the Committee is right, in stating, that there 
is, in effect, a bounty upon the exportation of the British article. I 
think it entirely proper, therefore, to raise our own duty by such an 
amount as shall be equivalent to that bounty. 

And here, Mr. Chairman, before proceeding to those parts of the 
Bill to which I most strenuously object, I will be so presumptuous, 
as to take up a challenge which Mr. Speaker has thrown down. He 
has asked us, in a tone of interrogatory indicative of the feeling of 
anticipated triumph, to mention any country in which manufactures 
have flourished, without the aid of prohibitory laws. He has de- 
manded, if it be not policy, protection, ay, and prohibition, that 
have carried other states to the height of their prosperity, and wheth- 
er any one has succeeded with such tame and inert legislation as 
ours. Sir, I am ready to answer this inquiry. 

There is a country, not undistinguished among the nations, in 
which the progress of manufactures has been far more rapid than in 
any other, and yet unaided by prohibitions or unnatural restrictions. 
That country, the happiest which the sun shines on, is our own. 

The woollen manufactures of England have existed from the early 
ages of the monarchy. Provisions, designed to aid and foster them, 
are in the blacklettered statutes of the Edwards and the Hemys. 
Ours, on the contrary, are but of yesterday; and yet, with no more 



296 

than the protection of existing laws, they are already at the point 
of close and promising competition. Sir, nothing is more unphilo- 
sophical than to refer us, on these subjects, to the policy adopted by 
other nations in a very different state of society, or to infer that what 
was judged expedient by them, in their early history, must also be 
expedient for us, in this early part of our own. This would be reck- 
oning our age chronologically, and estimating our advance by our 
number of years; when, in truth, we should regard only the state of 
society, the knowledge, the skill, the capital, the enterprise, which 
belong to our times. We have been transferred from the stock of 
Europe, in a comparatively enlightened age, and our civilisation and 
improvement date back as early as her own. Her original history 
is, also, our original history; and if, since the moment of separation, 
she has gone ahead of us, in some respects, it may be said, without 
violating truth, that we have kept up in others, and, in others again, 
are ahead ourselves. We are to legislate, then, with regard to the 
present actual state of society; and our own experience shows us 
that, commencing manufactures at the present highly enlightened 
and emulous momeut, we need not imitate the clumsy helps, with 
which, in less auspicious times, governments have sought to enable 
the ingenuity and industry of their people to hobble along. 

The English cotton manufactures began about the commencement 
of the last reign. Ours can hardly be said to have commenced, with 
any earnestness, until the application of the power loom, in 1816, 
not more than eight years ago. Now, sir, I hardly need again speak 
of its progress, its present extent, or its assurance of future enlarge- 
ment. In some sorts of fabrics we are already exporters, and the 
products of our manufactories are, at this moment, in the South Ame- 
rican markets. We see, then, what can be done without prohibition 
or extraordinary protection, because we see what has been done; and 
I venture to predict that, in a few years, it will be thought wonderful 
that these branches of manufactures, at least, should have been 
thought to require additional aid from government. 

Mr. Chairman: The best apology for laws of prohibition and laws 
of monopoly, will be found in that state of society, not only unen- 
lightened, but sluggish, in which they are most generally established. 
Private industry, in those days, required strong provocatives, which 
governments were seeking to administer by these means. Something 
was wanted to actuate and stimulate men, and the prospects of such 
profits as would, in our times, excite unbounded competition, would 
hardly move the sloth of former ages. In some instances, no doubt, 
these laws produced an effect, which, in that period, would not have 
taken place without them. But our age is wholly of a different 
character, and its legislation takes another turn. Society is full of 
excitement; competition comes in place of monopoly; and intelligence 
and industry ask only for fair play and an open field. Profits, in- 
deed, in such a state of things, will be small, but they will be exten- 
sively diffused; prices will be low, and the great body of the people 
prosperous and happy. It is worthy of remark, that, from the 
operation of these causes, commercial wealth, while it is increased 
beyond calculation in its general aggregate, is, at the same time, 
broken and diminished in its subdivisions. Commercial prosperity 



297 

should be judged of therefore rather from the extent of trade, than 
from the magnitude of its apparent profits. It has been remarked, 
that Spain, certainly one of the poorest nations, made very great 
profits on the amount of her trade; but with little other benefit than 
the enriching of a few individuals and companies. Profits to the 
English merchants engaged in the Levant and Turkey trade, were 
formerly very great, and there were richer merchants in England 
some centuries ago, considering the comparative value of money, 
than at the present highly commercial period. When the dinjinution 
of profits arises from the extent of competition, it indicates rather a 
salutary than an injurious change.* 

-The true course then, sir, for us to pursue, is, in my opinion, to 
consider what our situation is; what our means are; and how they 
can be best applied. What amount of population have we, in com- 
parison with our extent of soil, what amount of capital, and labor at 
what price.' As to skill, knowledge, and enterprise, we may safely 
take it for granted, that, in these particulars, we are on an equality 
with others. Keeping these considerations in view, allow me to 
examine two or three of those provisions of the bill to which I feel 
the strongest objections. 

To begin with the article of iron. Our whole annual consump- 
tion of this article is supposed by the Chairman of the Committee, 
to be 48,000 or 50,000 tons. Let us suppose the latter. The amount 
of our own manufacture he estimates, I think, at 17,000 tons. The 
present duty on the imported article, is ^15 per ton, and as this duty 
causes of course an equivalent augmentation of the price of the home 
manufacture, the whole increase of price is equal to !|^7 50,000 annu- 
ally. This sum we pay on a raw material, and on an absolute 
necessary of life. The Bill proposes to raise the duty from ^15 to 
1)22 50 per ton, which would be equal to ^1 ,125,000 on the whole an- 
nual consumption. So that, suppose the point of prohibition which is 
aimed at by some gentlemen to be attained, the consumers of the ar- 
ticle would pay this last mentioned sum every year to the producers 
of it, over and above the price at which they could supply themselves 
with the same article from other sources. There would be no miti- 
gation of this burden, except from the prospect, whatever that might 
be, that iron would fall in value, by domestic competition, after the 
importation should be prohibited. It will be easy, I think, to show, 
that it cannot fall; and supposing for the present that it shall not, 
the result will be, that we shall pay annually a sum of 5^ 1,1 25,000, 
constantly augmented, too, by increased consumption of the article, to 
support a business (hat cannot support itself. It is of no consequence 
to the argument, that this sum is expended at home; so it would be, 
if we taxed the people to support any other useless and expensive 
establishment, to build another Capitol for excunple, or incur an un- 

* " Tlie present equable difTusion of moderate wealtli cannot be better illustrated, than by 
remarking that in this age many palaces and superb mansions have been pulled down, or 
converted to otiier purposes, wliile none have been erected on a like scale. Tiie numberless 
baronial castles and mansions, in all parts of England, now in ruins, may all be adduced as 
examples <j1 the decrease of inordinate wealth. On the other hand, the mulliplicatioii of 
coiinnodii)us dwellings, for the upper and iniildle classes of society, and the increased com- 
forts of all ranks, exhiliit a picture of individual happiness, unknown in any other age."— 
■Sir G. Blane's Letter to Lord Spencer, in 1800. 

38 



298 

necessary expense of any sort. The question still is, are the mon- 
ey, time, and labor, well laid out in these cases? The present price 
of iron at Stockholm, I am assured by importers, is $ 53 per ton on 
board, ^ 48 in the yard before loading, and probably not far from ^ 40 
at the mines. Freight, insurance, &c. may be iairly estimated at 
!^15, to which add our present duty of ^15 more, and these two last 
SI ims, together with the cost on board at Stockholm, give %83 as the 
c«)st of Swedes iron in our market. In fact it is said to have been 
sold last year at ^ 81 50 to |i 82 per ton. We perceive, by this state- 
ment, that the cost of the iron is doubled in reaching us from the mine 
in which it is produced. In other words, our present duty with the 
e.xpense of transportation, gives an advantage to the American, over 
the foreign manufacturer, of one hundred per cent. Why then can- 
not the iron be manufactured at home .'' Our ore is said to be as good, 
and some of it better. It is under our feet, and the chairman of the 
committee tells us, that it might be wrought by persons who otherwise 
will not be employed. Why then is it not wroughtl Nothing could 
be more sure of constant sale. It is not an article of changeable 
fashion, but of absolute, permanent necessity, and such, therefore, 
as would always meet a steady demand. Sir, I think it would be 
well for the chairman of tlfe committee to revise his premises, for I 
am persuaded that there is an ingredient properly belonging to the 
calculation which he has mistated or omitted. Swedes iron in Eng- 
land pays a duty, I think, of about ^'21 per ton; yet it is imported in 
considerable quantities, notwithstanding the vast capital, the excellent 
coal, and, more important than all perhaps, the highly improved 
state of inland navigation in England; although I am aware that the 
English use of Swedes iron may be thought to be owing in some de- 
gree to its superior quality. 

Sir, the true explanation of this, appears to me to lie in the differ- 
ent prices of labor; and here I apprehend is the grand mistake in the 
argument of the chairman of the committee. He says it would cost 
the nation, as a nation, nothing, to make our ore into iron. Now, I 
think it would cost us precisely that which we can worst afford; that 
is, great labor. Although bar iron is very properly considered a raw 
material in respect to its various future uses; yet, as bar iron, the 
principal ingredient in its cost is labor. Of manual labor, no nation 
lias more than a certain quantity, nor can it be increased at will. As 
to some operations, indeed, its place may be supplied by machinery; 
but there are other services which machinery cannot perform for it, 
and which it must perform for itself A most important question for 
every nation, as well as for every individual to propose to itself, is, 
how it can best apply that quantity of labor which it is able to per- 
form.^ Labor is the great producer of wealth; it moves all other 
causes. If it call machinery to its aid, it is still employed not only 
m using the machinery, but in making it. Now, with respect to the 
quantity of labor, as we all know, different nations are differently 
circumstanced. Some need, more than anything, work for hands, 
others require hands for work; and if we ourselves are not absolute- 
ly in the latter class, we are still, most fortunately, very near it. I 
cannot find that we have those idle hands, of which the chairman of 
the committee speaks. The price of labor is a conclusive and uu- 



299 

answerable refutation of that idea; it is known to be higher with us 
than in any other civilized state, and this is the greatest of all proofs 
of general happiness. Labor in this country is independent and 
proud. It has not to ask the patronage of capital, but capital solic- 
its the aid of labor. This is the general truth, in regard to the con- 
dition of our whole population, although in the large cities there are, 
doubtless, many exceptions. The mere capacity to labor in com- 
mon agricultural employments, gives to our young men the assurance 
of independence. We have been asked, sir, by the chairman of the 
committee, in a tone of some pathos, whether we will allow to the 
serfs of Russia and Sweden the benefit of making iron for us.^ Let 
me inform the gentleman, sir, that those same serfs do not earn more 
than seven cents a day, and that they work in these mines, for that 
compensation, because they are serfs. And let me ask the gentle- 
man further, whether ive have any labor in this country that cannot be 
belter employed than in a business which does iwl yield the laborer more 
than seven cents a day'l This, it appears to me, is the true question 
for our consideration. There is no reason for saying that we will 
work iron because we have mountains that contain the ore. We 
might for the same reason dig among our rocks for the scattered 
grains of gold and silver which might be found there. The true in- 
quiry is, can ive produce the article in a useful state at the same cost, or 
nearly at the same cost, or at any reasonable approximation toivards the 
same cost, at ivhich ive can import it. 

Some general estimates of the price and profits of labor, in those 
countries from which we import our iron, might be formed by com- 
paring the reputed products of different mines, and their prices, with 
the number of hands employed. The mines of Danemora are said 
to yield about 4000 tons, and to employ in the mines twelve hun- 
dred workmen. Suppose this to be worth 50 dollars per ton; any 
one will find by computation that the whole product would not pay 
in this country, for one quarter part of the necessary labor. The 
whole export of Sweden was estimated, a few years ago, at 400,000 
ship-pounds, or about 54,000 tons. Comparing this product with 
ihe number of' workmen usually supposed to be employed in the 
mines which produce iron for exportation, the result will not greatly 
differ from the foregoing. These estimates are general, and might 
not conduct us to a precise result; but we know, from intelligent 
travellers, and eye-witnesses, that the price of labor in the Swedish 
mines, does not exceed seven cents a day.* 

The true reason, sir, why it is not our policy to compel our citi- 
zens to manufacture our own iron, is, that they are far better em- 

* The price of labor in Russia may be pretty well collected frt)m Tonke's " View of the 
Russian Empire." "The vvorkincii in the minen and the foinideries are, indeed, all called 
master-people; bnt they distingnish themselves into masters, undermasters, apprentices, 
delvers, servants, carriers, washers, and separators. In proportion to their ai)ility tlu-ir 
wages are regulated, which proceed from 15 to upwards of 30 roubles |)er annum." The 
provisions which they receive from the inau;a7,incs are deducted from this pay." Tlie value 
of tiie rouble at that time (1799) wa> about 24 pence sterling, or 45 cents of our money. 

" By the edict of 1799," it is added, " a laborer with a horse shall receive, dail'v, in 
summer, 20, anrl in winter 12 copecks; a laborer, without a horse, in summer, 10, in 
winter, S, copecks." 

A copeck is Ihe hundredth pait of a rouble, or about half a cent of our money. The 
price of labor may have risen, in .some degree, since that period, but probably not "much. 



300 

ployed. It is an unproductive business, and they are not poor 
enough to be obliged to follow it. If we had more of poverty, 
more of misery, and something of servitude, if we had an ignorant, 
idle, starving population, we might set up for iron makers against 
the world. 

The committee will take notice, Mr. Chairman, that, under our 
present duty, together with the expense of transportation, our man- 
ufacturers are able to supply their own immediate neighbourhood; 
and this proves the magnitude of that substantial encouragement 
which these two causes concur to give. There is little or no for- 
eign iron, I presume, used in the county of Lancaster. This is 
owing to the heavy expense of land carriage; and, as we recede 
farther from the coast, the manufacturers are still more completely 
secured, as to their own immediate market, against the competition 
of the imported article. But what they ask is to be allowed to sup- 
ply the seacoast, at such a price as shall be formed by adding to 
the cost at the mines the expense of land carriage to the sea; and 
this appears to me most unreasonable. The effect of it would be 
to compel the consumer to pay the cost of two land transporta- 
tions; lor, in the first place, the price of iron, at the inland furnaces, 
will always be found to be at, or not much below, the price of the 
imported article in the seaport, and the cost of transportation to the 
neighbourhood of the furnace; and to enable the home product to 
hold a competition with the imported in tlie seaport, the cost of 
another transportation downward, from the furnace to the coast, 
must be added. Until our means of inland commerce be improved, 
and the charges of transportation by that means lessened, it appears 
to me whollv impracticable, with such duties as any one would think 
of proposing, to meet the wishes of the manufacturers of this arti- 
cle. Suppose we were to add the duty proposed by this bill, although 
it would benefit the capital invested in works near the sea, and the 
navigable rivers, yet the benefit would not extend far in the interior. 
Where, then, are we to stop, or what limit is proposed to us? 

The freight of iron has been afforded from Sweden to the LTnited 
States as low as eight dollars per ton. This is not "more than the 
price of fifty miles land carriage. Stockholm, therefore, for the 
purpose of this argument, may be considered as within fifty miles 
of Philadelphia. Now, it is at once a just and a strong view of 
this case, to consider, that there are, within fifty miles of our mar- 
ket, vast multitudes of persons who are willing to labor in the pro- 
duction of this article for us, at the rate of seven cents per day, 
while we have no labor which will not command, upon the average, 
at least five or six times that amount. The question is, then, shall 
we buy this article of these manufacturers, and sulTer our own labor 
to earn its greater reward, or shall we employ our own labor in a 
similar manufacture, and make up to it, by a tax on consumers, the 
loss which it must necessarily sustain. 

I proceed, sir, to the article of hemp. Of this we imported last 
year, in round numbers, 6,000 tons, paying a duty of '^ 30 a ton, or 
<}i 180,000 on the whole amount; and this article, it is to be remem- 
bered, is consumed almost entirely in the uses of navigation. The 
whole burden may be said to fall on one interest It is said we can 



301 

produce this article if we will raise the duties. But why is it not 
produced now; or why, at least, have we not seen some specimens? 
for the present is a very high duty, when expenses of importation are 
added. Hemp was purchased at St. Petersburg, last year, at ^101 67 
per ton. Charges attending shipment, Stc. $14 25. Freight may 
be stated at ^^30 per ton, and our existing duty is $30 more. These 
three last sums, being the charges of transportation, amount to a 
protection of near 75 per cent, in favor of the home manufacturer, 
if there were any such. And we ought to consider, also, that the 
price of hemp at St. Petersburg is increased by all the expense of 
transportation from the place of growth to that port; so that proba- 
bly the whole cost of transportation, from the place of growth to 
our market, including our duty, is equal to the first cost of the ar- 
ticle; or, in other words, is a protection in favor of our own product 
of 100 per cent. 

And since it is stated that we have great quantities of fine land 
for the production of hemp, of which I have no doubt, the question 
recurs, u'liy is it not produced] I speak of tlie water rotted hemp, for 
it is admitted that that which'is dew rotted is not sufficiently good 
for the requisite purposes. I cannot say whether the cause be in 
climate, in the process of rotting, or what else, but the fact is certain, 
that there is no American water rotted hemp in the market. We are 
acting, therefore, upon a hypothesis. Is it not reasonable that those 
who say that they can produce the article, shall at least prove the 
truth of that allegation before new taxes are laid on those who use 
the f^reign commodity? Suppose this bill passes: the price of hemp 
is immediately raised $ 14 80 per ton, and this burden I'alls immedi- 
ately on the ship builder; and no part of it, for the present, will go 
for the benefit of the American grower, because he has none of the 
article that can be used, nor is it expected that much of it will be 
produced for a considerable time. Still the tax takes effect upon 
the imported article; and the ship owners, to enable the Kentucky 
farmer to receive an additional $ 14 on his ton of hemp, nhenevcr he 
may be able to raise and manufacture it, pay, in the meantime, an 
equal sum per ton into the Treasury on all the imported hemp which 
they are still obliged to use; and this is called " protection!" Is this 
just or fair? A particular interest is here burdened, not only for the 
benefit of another particular interest, but burdened also beyond that, 
for the benefit of the Treasury. It is said to be important for the 
country that this article should be raised in it; then, let the country 
bear the expense, and pay the bounty. If it be for the good of the 
whole, let the sacrifice be made by the whole, and not by a part. If 
it be thought useful and necessary, from political considerations, to 
encourage the growth and manufacture of hemp, government has 
abundant means of doing it. It might give a direct bounty, and such 
a measure would, at least, distribute the burden equally; or, as gov- 
ernment itself is a great consumer of this article, it might stipulate 
to confine its own purchases to the home product, so soon as it should 
be shown to be of the proper quality. I see no objection to this pro- 
ceeding, if it be thought to be an object to encourage the production. 
It might easily, and perhaps properly, be provided, by law, that the 
Navy should be supplied with American hemp, the quality being 

BB 



302 

good, at any price not exceeding, by more than a given amount, the 
current price of foreign lieinp in our market. Everything conspires 
to render some sucli course preferable to the one now proposed. 
The encouragement in that way would be ample, and, if the experi- 
ment should succeed, the whole object would be gained; and if it 
should fail, no considerable loss or evil would be lelt by any one. 

I stated, some days ago, and I wish to renew the statement, what 
was the amount of the proposed augmentation of the duties on iron 
and hemp, in the cost of a vessel. Take the case of a common ship, 
of 300 tuns, not coppered, nor copper fastened. It would stand thus, 
by the present duties: 

14i Tons of iron, for hull, rigging, and anchors, at ^ 15 per 

ton - - - - - - 1 217 50 

lOTonsof hemp, at$30 - - - - 300 00 

40 Bolts Russia duck, at $ 2 - - - 80 00 

20 Bolts Ravens duck, at $ 1 25 - - - 25 00 

On articles of ship chandlery, cabin furniture, hardware, &C. 40 00 



The bill proposes to add: 
^ 7 40 per ton on iron, which w' ill be - 
|§ 14 80 per ton on hemp, equal to - 

And on duck, by the late amendment of the bill, say 25 

per cent _ _ _ _ 



But, to the duties on iron and hemp, should be added those paid 
on cop])er, whenever that article is used. By the statement which 
I furnished the other day, it appeared that the duties received by 
government, on articles used in the construction of a vessel of 359 
tons, with copper /'os/tm?i<;'s, amounted to ^ 1056. With the augmen- 
tations of this Bill, they would be equal to ^ 1400. Now, I cannot 
but flatter myself, Mr. Chairman, that, before the committee will 
consent to this new burden upon the .shipping interest, it will very 
deliberately weigh the probable consequences. I would again urg- 
ently solicit its attention to the condition of that interest. We are 
told that Government has protected it, by discriminating duties, and 
by an exclusive right to the coasting trade. But it would retain the 
coasting trade, by its own natural efforts, in like manner, and with 
more certainty, than it now retains any portion of foreign trade. 
The discriminating duties are now abolished, and while they existed, 
they were nothing more than countervailing measures; not so much 
designed to give our navigation an advantage over that of other na- 
tions, as to put it upon an equality; and we have, accordingly, abol- 
ished ours, when they have been willing to abolish theirs. Look to 
the rate of freights. Were they ever lower, or even so low.' I ask 
gentlemen who know, whether the harbor of Charleston, and the 
river of Savannah, be not crowded with ships seeking employment, 
and finding none.-* I would ask the gentlemen from New Orleans, 





$ 


662 


50 




$ 


107 


30 


- 




148 


00 


15 












25 


00 




$ 


280 


30 



303 

if their magnificent Mississippi does not exhibit, for furlongs, a forest 
of masts? The condition, sir, of the shipping interest is not that of 
those who are insisting on higli profits, or struggling for monopoly; 
but it is the condition of men content with the smallest earnings, and 
anxious for their bread. The freight of cotton has formerly been 
three pence sterling, from Charleston to Liverpool, in time of peace. 
It is now I know not what, or how many, fractions of a penny; I 
think, however, it is stated at five-eighths. The producers, then, of 
this great staple, are able, by means of this navigation, to send it, for 
a cent a pound, from their own doors to the best market in the world. 

Mr. Chairman, I will now only remind the committee that, while 
we are proposing to add new burdens to the shipping interest, a very 
dift'crent line of policy is followed by our great commercial and mari- 
time rival. It seems to be announced as the sentiment of the Gov- 
ernment of England, and vmdoubtedly it is its real sentiment, that the 
first of all manufactures is the manufacture of ships. A constant and 
wakeful attention is paid to this interest, and very important regula- 
tions, favorable to it, have been adopted within the last year, some 
of which I will beg leave to refer to, with the hope of exciting the 
notice, not only of the committee, but of all others who may feel, as 
1 do, a deep interest in this subject. In the first place, a general 
amendment has taken place in the register acts, introducing many 
new provisions, and, among others, the following: 

A direct mortgage of the interest of a ship is allowed, without sub- 
jecting the mortgagee to the responsibility of an owner. 

The proportion of interest held by each owner is exhibited in the 
register, thereby facilitating both sales and mortgages, and giving a 
new value to shipping among the moneyed classes. 

Shares, in the ships of copartnerships, may be registered as joint 
property, and subject to the same rules as other partnership effects. 

Ships may be registered in the name of trustees, for the benefit of 
joint stock companies; and many other regulations are adopted with 
the same general view of rendering the mode of holding the property 
as convenient and as favorable as possible. 

By another act, British registered vessels, of every description, are 
allowed to enter into the general and the coasting trade in the India 
seas, and may now trade to and from India, with any part of the 
world, except China. 

By a third, all limitations and restrictions, as to latitude and longi- 
tude, are removed from ships engaged in the Southern whale fishery. 
These regulations, I presume, have not been made without first ob- 
taining the consent of the East India Company; so true is it found, 
that real encouragement of enterprise ofi;ener consists, in our days, 
in restraining or buying off monopolies and prohibitions, than in im- 
posing or extending them. 

The trade with Ireland is turned into a free coasting trade; light 
duties have been reduced, and various other beneficial arrangements 
made, and still others proposed. I might add, that, in favor of gen- 
eral commerce, and as showing their confidence in the principles of 
liberal intercourse, the British government has perfected the ware- 
house system, and authorised a reciprocity of duties with foreign 
states, at the discretion of the Privy Council. 



304 

This, sir, is the attention which our great rival is paying to these 
important subjects, and we may assure ourselves that, if we do not 
keep alive a proper sense of our own interests, she will not only beat 
us, but will deserve to beat us. 

Sir, I will detain you no longer. There are some parts of this Bill 
which I highly approve; there are others in which I should acquiesce; 
but those to which I have now stated my objections appear to me so 
destitute of all justice, so burdensome and so dangerous to that in- 
terest which has steadily enriched, gallantly defended, and proudly 
distinguished us, that nothing can prevail upon me to give it my 
support 



NOTE. 

Since the delivery of this Speech, an arrival has brought London papers containing the 
Speech of the English Chancellor of the Exchequer, (Mr. Robinson,) on the 23d February 
last in submitting to Parliament the Annual Financial Statement. The author hopes he 
inay be pardoned for adding the following extract from that Sjieech, as showing, pretty clear- 
ly, whether he was right, in his representation of the prevailing sentiment, in the English 
Government, on the general subject of prohibitory laws, and on tlie silk manufacture, and 
the wool tax, particularly. 

" In the earlier part of what I have taken the liberty of addressing to the Committee, 1 
alluiled to that portion of this question which refers to a more free and lil)eral system of 
policy in matters of trade. To this division of the sulyect, I will now particidarly invite 
attention. There are, as of course Honorable Gentlemen are aware, various branches of 
our commerce, loaded on the one hand with high duties upon the importation, and which, 
in an opposite direction, are encumbered with restrictions an<l prohibitions of diflerent 
kinds. Amongst tliese is the article of wool (Hear.) As the law ni)W stands, (which, by 
the way, as far as diUv is concerned, is of very recent establishment,) the duty is 6d per lb.; 
it was "orio^inallv one "penny. This duty was imposed in the year 1819, not at all, as has 
been oftenin mv opinion, and indeed in the opinion also of my noble friend at the head of 
the Treasury, very inaccurately stated, f)r the purpose of protection, but merely with a view 
to the increasa of the revenue. But the parties interested, and who sought the abrogation 
of this law, were alwajs told : ' You have no right to object to that duty, so long as you 
require tliat the produce of tlie British wool-grower should be confined to the consumption 
of tlii.^ coimtry,' (Hear.) It was never concealed, either in this House, or from the per- 
sons engaged in the trade; we constantly said, ' If you will consent to the removal of that 
impnlitu- rcptrictinn, as we consider it, upon the export of British wool, we will propose in 
Parliament the repeal of the duty.' The discussion of this subject led to a good deal of 
conHuiuiicatioii, in the last year, with the manufacturing interests, in different parts of the 
countrv : they held meetings,'at which various resolutions wer6 adopted : as may he supposed, 
it was found in the result, that there existed a discordance of opinion on die question at 
issue. Some were disposed to think that the repeal of the duty would be less of a benefit 
to them, than the removal of the restriction would be an evil ; they were therefore desirous 
that the matter should be left just as it stands, and that no alteration should be made ; they 
were anxious indeed to get rid of the duty, but not at the expense of the loss of the protec- 
tion they imagined the restriction aflorded them. Undoubtedly, however, a majority, I may 
say a decided majority, of the interests concerned in the woollen trade, were of opinion, that 
it would be beneficial to them to accede to that sort of compromise, that the duty shoulcl be 
repealed, and a free export of the article permitted. I confess, on the best and most delibe- 
rate \ iew I have been alile to take of the subject, 1 cannot see what reasonable objection 
(here can be to adopt such a plan. (Hear, hear.) Certainly, a part of the plan I shall 
submit to Parliaincul, will be, to reduce the duty on foreign wool, from 6d. per pound, which 
it is at present, to Id. |)er pound, as it was originally Ixdore the bill of 1819. I shall then 
recommend that British wool lie allowed to be exported, on the payment of a small duty of 
Id. al:^o, to put ihem upon a level, and to keep the balance even between the two. Thus 
shall we sweep away needless, and, as I think, injurious statutes of restriction, and not 



305 

merely those, but penalties, oatlis, and Heaven knows what besides. (Hear, hear.) ^ All 
of these are exoeedinijly inci)nv( nient, and, wlial is inorc, the\ do no possilde f^ood. Thus, 
the wliole trade will he put upf)n a footing, which, I ain quite confident, will turn out to be 
most beneficial to both parties — the grower (if British wool aiul the manufacturer of tlie for- 
eign article. On that matter I feel none of the apprehensions which at times have been 
expressed by both parties. I am satisfied that the conseciucnce of the change will be a 
great extension of our woollen trade to eveiy <iuarter of the w<a Id ; and it is beyond my com- 
prehension to imagine how such a state of things can be otherwise than a(hantageous to 
those who sell the raw material — (Hear!) — therefore I see nothing but good to result from 
the repeal of the duty, and the removal of the restriction ; and I hope that, in endeavouring 
to accom|)lish this object, I shall be supported by the House. (Much cheering.) The loss 
I anticipate to the revenue from sucii a proceeding, is 350,000/. per annum. The next item 
to which I shall call the attention of the Connnittee, is one which, I own, appears to be of 
paramount iniport;ince in this view of the subject. I mean in that view of the subject 
which relates to the removal of restrictions. I allude to the item of silk. (Hear.) This 
trade is thus circumstanced : there is a very high duty on the raw material, and a positive 
prohibition of the consumption of the foreign manufactined article. I will, with the leave 
of the Conmiittee, take the latter first; and, in the outset, I should wish to ask, where is 
the advantage of retaining the prtjhibitory system. (Hear, hear.) Where is the advantage 
of retaining it, looking at it eitiier with reference to our intercourse with other nations, or 
with reference to our own domestic interests '? (Hear.) For some years past there has 
certainly prevailed in this country, among itsablest statesmen and our most eminent writers, 
I should say, indeed, among all men of sense and reflection, a decided conviction that tiie 
maintenance <if this prohibitory system is exceedingly impolitic. We have recently made 
a certain progress towards the lemoval of the evil. Are we to stop short! If we do stop 
short, what will foreign nations say, and justly say, of our conduct! Will they not say, 
that, though we profess liberality, we hate it in our" hearts ! that we have been endeavour- 
ing to cajole them to admit our own manufactures into their territories, while we continue 
rigidly by every means in our power, and by adhering closely to an anticiuated system, to 
exclude theirs ! When our practice is so at variance with our professions, it is imjiossible 
that they should give any credit to our assertions. Whenever a foreign state imposes a new 
duty on any of our manufactures, my right honorable friend, the President of the Board of 
Trade, is assaulted by representations from all quarters; instant measures are to be adopted 
to get the riuty removed, and we are to remonstrate with the foreign power against its con- 
tinuance. What would be the consequence ! Our Ambassador is instructed to state to the 
foreign court at which he resides, that the new diUy imposed is very injurious to British in- 
terests, and is viewed by this country in an unfriendly light. The answer of the foreign 
minister of course must be — 'It maybe so; we cannot help it; for how can we admit 
your goods, if you do not admit ours ?' \X\{\\ such a reply, the British Ambassador must 
make his bow and retire, discomfited and ashamed; and I defy the ingenuity of man to in- 
vent an argument to refute the powerful urgume.ntum ad hominem of the foreign minister. 
Other countries must conclude that we are only attempting to delude them ; that it is all 
pretence and hvpocrisy on our part; and that we do not really believe that there is practical 
sounilness in the principles we abstractedly recommend. I myself am well satisfied of the 
practical soundness of those principles, ami that we ought to take the first opportunity of 
adopting diem. (Hear, hear ) There never was so favorable an opportunity as the present 
for carrying our principles into eflect, and for inviting foreign powers to act in accordance 
withlhem. I.et us invite them to join with us in cutting the cords that tie down commerce 
tothe earth, that it may soar aloft, unconfined and. unrestricted. (Hear, hear.) If e^er an 
opportunity for accomplishing this great good was afforded, it is the moment when I am 
speaking — and for God's sake let us embrace it. Are not our manufactures now in a state 
of universal activity 1 Is not everything in a condition of improvement ? And is not capi- 
tal in eager search of the means by which it may be prcjfitably expended ! (Hear, hear.) 
We have thus the finest opportunity for emancipating ourselves from ancient prejudices, and 
for making a new start in the race of wealth and ))rosperity. (Hear, hear.) On these 
grounds I am anxious to propose the adoption of this liberal system. But give me leave to 
ask, if there are not many others independent of those merely of a commercial nature, 
which strongly support it ? In the first place, is it not perfectly well known, that, after all, 
these )>roliibitions, guard them and t'ence them with laws as you will, are, in |)oint of fact 
evaded. (Hear, hear.) I rciiicmber, and 1 dare say many others have not forgotten, when 
the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, last year, even in this place, prodw'ed his Bandana hand- 
kerchief : he triumphantly uid'm led the standard of smuggling ; he hoisted, as it were, the 
colors of opposition to the (Jo\eninu'nt and its laws, and having complacently blown his 
nose upon tliein, he returned them (o his pocket. ((Cheering and laughter.) He might not 
know at the time, though I reminded him of it afterwards, that there was not a gentleman 
near him at the time who had not a right t(j tak<^ posse^■sioll of that handkerchief and export 
it to a foreign comitry. (Hear.) I inriition this fact only as a strong practical illustration 
of the utter impossibility of carrying these prohibitions into complete effect. Everybody who 
39 BB* 



306 

nas befiti on some parts of the coast, has seen foreign vessels coming in from the neighbour- 
ing continent, and lias, no dotibt, often observed females step out of them, apparently of the 
most uncomfortable corpulency. In due time, and without any surgical aid, they were 
safely delivered of their burdens, and were restored to the natural slimness of their graceful 
figures. (Laughter.) Such I believe to be a very common practice ; and there is, in fact, 
no end to the ingenuity of the devices to introduce contraband articles. Not only ingenuity 
is displayed, but fraud and crime — perjury, and every possible evil moral consequence. 
We all know, that crime Ijegets crime; that, in whatever it may begin, a progenies vitio- 
sior always springs up; Nemo repents fuit turpissimus ; and a man who begins as a 
smuggler vvill probably end as something much worse. Perhaps he smuggles in the fir.st 
instance only with the innocent purpose of making a present to a female friend or relative; 
but when a man is accustomed to the violation of the law, he will not find it very difficult, 
by degrees, to go further. He finds that he cannot effect his object without concealment — 
he takes a false oath, and becomes familiarized to that species of perjuiy. He commences 
by presents ; then thinks he may turn the practice to pecuniary advantage; he smuggles upon 
a larger scale ; he extends his adventures, and instead of gloves, shoes, or silks, he tries the 
experiment of more valuable articles. He makes money, and in time is induced to embark 
in more desperate and more criminal speculations. What is the consequence 1 You are 
obliged to keep up a navy to prevent contraband trade, a circumstance alluded to on a for- 
mer night. Battle and bloodshed ensue — the loss of life, and perhaps deliberate murder. 
All this is very melancholy, and yet for what is it incurred 1 Under tlie fanciful notion 
that it is for the interest of the silk manufacture of this country. Why, Lord bless me, sir, 
we know very well, after all, that the British silk manufacture is so highly thought of abroad 
at tfiis moment, that I believe, if a market were open where the goods of this kingdom 
should compete with those of anv other, the British goods would drive all rivalship out of 
the field. (Hear, hear, hear.) "if this lx> so, there is not the slightest pretence for saying 
that, to change the system, would be to injure our silk manufactures. Let us accompany it 
with a reduction of duty on the raw article, and there is not a foreign country that will not 
be glad to take our manufactured silks. I, tlierefore, hope that the House will think it full 
time to throw down this hollow, gilded, and distorted idol of imaginary protecnon : to hurl 
it from its base, and to establish on tlie same fomidation the well-proportioned statue of 
commercial liberty. (Hear, hear, hear.)" 



SPEECH 

IN THE SENATE OF THE lUNITED STATES, ON THE TARIFF BILL. 

MAY 9, 1828. 

Mr. President, — This subject is surrounded with embarrassments, 
on all sides. Of itself, however wisely or temperately treated, it is 
full of difficulties; and these difficulties have not been diminished 
by the particular frame of this bill, nor by the manner hitherto pur- 
sued of proceeding with it. A diversity of interests exist, or is 
supposed to exist, in different parts of the country. This is one 
source of difficulty. Different opinions are entertained as to the 
constitutional power of Congress; this is another. And then, again, 
different members of the Senate have instructions which they feel 
bound to obey, and which clash with one another. We have this 
morning seen an honorable member from New York, an important 
motion being under consideration, lay his instructions on the table, 
and point to them, as his power of attorney and as containing the 
directions for his vote. 

Those who intend to oppose this bill, under all circumstances, and 
in all or any forms, care not how objectionable it now is, or how bad 
it may be made. Others, finding their own leading objects satisfac- 
torily secured by it, naturally enough press forward, without staying 
to consider, deliberately, how injuriously other interests may be 
affected. All these causes create embarrassments, and inspire just 
fears that a wise and useful result is hardly to be expected. There 
seems a strange disposition to run the hazard of extremes; and to 
forget, that in cases of this kind, measure, proportion, and degree are 
objects of inquiry, and the true rules of judgment. I have not had the 
slightest wish to discuss the measure; not believing that, in the pre- 
sent state of things, any good could be done bv me, in that way. 
But the frequent declaration that this was altogether a New Eng- 
land measure, a bill for securing a monopoly to the capitalists of the 
north, and other expressions of a similar nature, have induced me to 
say a few words. 

New England, sir, has not been a leader in this policy. On the 
contrary, she held back herself and tried to hold others back from 
it, from the adoption of the constitution to 1824. Up to 1324, she 
was accused of sinister and selfish designs, because she discountenanc- 
ed the prop;ress of litis policy. It was laid to her charge, then, that 
having established her manufactures herself, she wished that other* 



308 

should not have the power of rivalling her; and, for that reason, 
opposed all legislative encouragement. Under this angry denuncia- 
tion against her, tlie act of 1824 passed. Now, the imputation is 
precisely of an opposite character. The present measure, is i)ronoun- 
ced to be exclusively for the benefit of New England; to be brought 
forward by her agency, and designed to gratify the cupidity of her 
wealthy establishments. 

Both charges, sir, are equally without the slightest foundation. 
The opinion of New England, up to 1824, was founded in the con- 
viction that, on the whole, it was wisest and best, both for herself 
and others, that manufactures should make haste slowly. She felt 
a reluctance to trust great interests on the foundation of government 
patronage; for who could tell how long such patronage would last, or 
with what steadiness, skill, or perseverance it would continue to be 
granted? It is now nearly fifteen years since, among the first things 
which I ever ventured to sny here, was the expression of a serious 
doubt whether this government was fitted, by its construction, to 
administer aid and protecticm to particular pursuits; whether, having 
called such pursuits into being by indications of its favor, it would 
not afterwards desert them, when troubles come upon them, and 
leave them to their fate. Whether this prediction, the result, certain- 
ly, of chance, and not of sagacity, will so soon be fulfilled, remains 

to be seen 

At the same time it is true, that from the very first commencement 
of the government, those who have administered its concerns have 
held a'^tone of encouragement and invitation towards those who 
should embark in manufactures. All the Presidents, I believe with- 
out exception, have concurred in this general sentiment; and the 
verv first act of Congress, laying duties of import, adopted the then 
unusual expedient of a preamble, apparently for little other purpose 
than that of declaring, that the duties which it imposed were 
imposed for the encouragement and protection of manufactures. 
When at the commencement of the late war, duties were doubled, 
we we're told that we should find a mitigation of the weight of taxa- 
tion, in the new aid and succour which would be thus afforded to ou: 
own'manufacturing labor. Like arguments were urged, and prevail-^ 
ed, but not by the aid of New England votes, when the tariff was 
afterwards arranged, at the close of the war, in 1816. Finally, after 
a whole winter's deliberation, the act of 1824 received the sanction 
of both houses of Congress, and settled the policy of the country. 
What, then, was New England to do? She was fitted for manufac- 
turing operations, by the amount and character of her population, by 
her capital, by the vigor and energy of her free labor, by the skill, 
economy, enterprise, and perseverance of her people. I repeat, 
What was she, under these circumstances, to do? A great and 
prosperous rival in her near neighbourhood, threatening to draw from 
her a part, perhaps a great part, of her foreign commerce: was she 
to use, or to neglect, those other means of seeking her own prosper- 
ity which belonged to her character and her condition? Was she to 
hold out, forever, against the course of the government, and see 
herself losing on one side, and yet make no eftbrt to sustain herself 
on the other? No, sir. Nothing was left to New England, after 



r 



309 

the act of 1824, but to conform herself to the will of others. Noth- 
ing was left to her, but to consider that the government had fixed and 
determined its own policy; and that policy wsls protectio7i. 

JNew England, poor, in some respects, in others, is as wealthy as 
her neighbours. Her soil would be held in low estimation, by those 
who are acquainted with the valley of the Mississippi and some 
of tiie meadows of the south. But in industry, in habits of labor, 
skill, and in accumulated capital, the fruit of two centuri-esof indus- 
try, she may be said to be rich. Alter this final declaration — this 
solemn promulgation of the policy of the government, I again ask, 
What was she to do .'' Was she to deny herself the use of her advan- 
tages, natural and acquired.^ Was she to content herself with use- 
less regrets? Was she longer to resist, what she could no longer 
prevent.'^ Or, was she, rather, to adapt her acts to her condition; 
and seeing the policy of the government thus settled and fixed, to 
accommodate to it, as well as she could, her own pursuits and her 
own industry.' Every man will see that she had no option. Every 
man will confess that there remained for her but one course. She 
not only saw this herself, but had, all along, foreseen, that if the 
system of protecting manufactures should be adopted, she must go 
largely into them, i believe, sir, almost every man from New Eng- 
land who voted against the law of 1824, declared, that if, notwith- 
standing his opposition to that law, it should still pass, there would 
be no alternative but to consider the course and policy of the gov- 
ernment as then settled and fixed, and to act accordingly. The law 
did pass; and a vast increase of investment in manufacturing estab- 
lishments was the consequence. Those who made such invest- 
ments, probably entertained not the slightest doubt that as much as 
was promised would be effectually granted; and that if, owing to any 
unforeseen occurrence, or untoward event, the benefit designed by 
the law, to any branch of manufactures, should not be realized, it 
would furnish a fair case for the consideration of government. Cer- 
tainly, they could not expect, after what had passed, that interests 
of great magnitude would be left at the mercy of the very first 
change of circumstances which might occur. 

As a general remark, it may be said, that the interests concerned 
in the act of 1824, did not complain oi' their condition under it, 
excepting only those connected with the woollen manufactures. 
These did complain; not so much of the act itself, as of a new state 
of circumstances, unforeseen when the law passed, but which had now 
arisen to thwart its beneficial operations, as to them; although in one 
respect, perhaps, the law itself was thought to be unwisely framed. 

Three causes have been generally stated, as having produced the 
disappointment experienced by the manufacturers of wool, under the 
law of 1824. 

First, it is alleged, that the price of the raw material had been 
raised too high, by the act itself This point had been discussed 
at the time, and although opinions varied, the result, so far as it 
depended on this part of the case, though it may be said to have 
been unexpected, was certainly not entirely unforeseen.* 

* Extract from Mr. Webster's Speech, on the Tariflfof 1824. — " This hill proposes, also, 
a very high duty upon imported wool ; and as far as I can learn, a majority of tlie manufac- 



310 

But, secondly, the manufacturers imputed their disappointment to 
a reduction of the price of wool in England, which took place 
just about the date of the law of 1824. This reduction was pro- 
duced by lowering the duty on imported wool from sixpence sterling 
to one penny sterling per pound. The effect of this is obvious 
enough; but in order to see the real extent of the reduction, it may 
be convenient to state the matter more particularly. 

The meaning of our law was doubtless to give the American 
manufacturer an advantage over his English competitors. Protection 
must mean this, or it means nothing. The English manufacturer 
having certain advantages, on his side, such as the lower price of 
labor, and the lower interest of money ; the object of our law was 
to counteract these advantages, by creating others, in behalf of the 
American manufacturer. Therefore, to see what was necessary to 
be done, in order that the American manufacturer might sustain the 
competition, a relative view of the respective advantages and disad- 
vantages was to be taken. In this view the very first element to be 
considered was, what is to each party the cost of the raw material. 
On this, the whole must materially depend. Now when the law of 
1824 passed, the English manufacturer paid a duty of sixpence ster- 
ling on imported wool. But in a very i^ew days afterwards, this 
duty was reduced by Parliament, from sixpence to a penny. A 
reduction of five pence per pound, in the price of wool, was estima-r 
ted in Parliament to be equal to a reduction of twenty-six per cent., 
ad valorem, on all imported wool; and this reduction, it is obvious, 
had its effect on the price of home-produced wool also. Almost, 
then, at the very moment, that the framers of the act of 1824, were 
raising the price of the raw material here, as that act did raise it, it 
was lowered in England, by the very great reduction of twenty-six 
per cent. Of course, this changed the whole basis of the calculation. 
It wrought a complete change in the relative advantages and disad- 
vantages of the English and American competitors; and threw the 
preponderance of advantage, most decidedly, on the side of the 
English. If the American manufacturer had not vastly too great a 
preference, before this reduction took place, it is clear he had too 
little afterwards. 

In a paper which has been presented to the Senate, and often 
referred to; a paper distinguished for the ability and clearness with 
which it enforces general principles — the Boston Report, — it is 
clearly proved, (what indeed is sufficiently obvious from the mere 
comparison of dates) that the Britisli government did not reduce its 
duty on wool because of our act of 1824. Certainly this is true; but 
the effect of that reduction, on our manufactures, was the same 
precisely as if the British act had been designed to operate against 
them, and for no other purpose. I think it cannot be doubted that 
our law of 1824, and the reduction of the wool duty in England, 
taken together, left our manufactures in a worse condition than they 
were before. If there was any reasonable ground, therefore, for 
passing the law of 1824, there is now the same ground for some 
other measure; and this ground too, is reenforced by the considera- 

turers are at least extremely doubtful wlietlier, tiiking these two provisions together, tl>e 
etale of tlie law is not better for them now than it would be if this should pass " 



31 J 

tion of the hopes excited, the enterprises undertaken, and the capi- 
tal invested, in consequence of that law. 

So much, sir, for this cause of disappointment. 

In the last place, it was alleged hy tlie manufacturers, that they 
suffered from the mode of collecting the duties on woollen fabrics at 
the custom-houses. These duties are ad valorem duties. Such 
duties, from the commencement of the government, have been esti- 
mated by reference to the invoice, as Hxing the value at the place 
whence imported. When not suspected to be false or fraudulent, 
the invoice is the regular proof of value. Originally this was a tol- 
erably safe mode of proceeding. While the importation was mainly 
in the hands of American merchants, the invoice would of course, if 
not false or fraudulent, express the terms and the price of an actual 
purchase and sale. But an invoice is not, necessarily, an instrument 
expressing the sale of goods and their prices. If there be but a 
list, or catalogue, with prices stated by way of estimate, it is still an 
invoice, and within the law. IVow the suggestion is, that the English 
manufacturer, in making out an invoice, in which prices are thus 
stated by himself, in the way of estimate merely, is able to obtain 
an important advantage over the American merchant who pur-chases 
in the same market, and whose invoice states, consequently, the 
actual prices, on the sale. And in proof of this suggestion it is 
alleged, that in the largest importing city in the union, a very great 
proportion, some say nearly all, of the woollen fabrics are imported 
on foreign account. The various papers which have come before 
us, praying for a tax on auction sales, aver that the invoice of the 
foreign importer is generally decidedly lower than that of the 
American importer; and that, in consequence of this and of the 
practice of sales at auction, the American merchant must be driven 
out of the trade. I cannot answer for the entire accuracy of these 
statements, but I have no doubt there is something of truth in them. 
The main facts haVe been often stated, and I have neither seen nor 
heard a denial of them. 

Is it true, then, that nearly the whole importation of woollens is, in 
the largest importing city, in the hands of foreigners? Is it true, 
as stated, that the invoices of such foreign importers are, generally, 
found to be lower than those of the American importer.'' If these 
things be so, it will be admitted that there is reason to believe that 
undervaluations do take place; and that some corrective for the evil 
should be administered. I am glad to see that the American mer- 
chants themselves, begin to bestow attention to a subject, as interest- 
ing to them as it is to the manufacturers. 

Under this state of things, sir, the law of the last session was 
proposed. It was confined, as I thought properly, to wool and wool- 
lens. It took up the great and leading subject of complaint, and 
nothing else./> It was urged indeed, against that bill, that although 
much had been said of frauds at the custom-house, no provision was 
made in it for the prevention of such frauds. That is a mistake. 
The general frame of the bill was such, that, if skilfully drawn and 
adapted to its purpose, its tendency to prevent sucli frauds would be 
manifest. By the fixing of prices at successive points of gradua- 
tion, or minimmns, as they are called, the power of evading duties bv 



312 

undervaluations would be most materially restrained. If these 
points, indeed, were sufficiently distant, it is obvious the duty would 
assume something of the certainty and precision of a specific duty. 
But this bill failed, and Congress adjourned, in March last year, 
leaving the subject where it had found it. 

The complaints, which had given rise to the bill, continued; and 
in the course of the summer, a meeting of the wool-growers and 
wool-manufacturers assembled in Pennsylvania, and agreed on a 
petition to Congress. I do not feel it necessary, on behalf of the 
citizens of Massachusetts, to disclaim a participation in that meet- 
ing. Persons of much worth and respectability, attended it from 
Massachusetts, and its proceedings and results manifested, I think, 
a degree of temper and moderation, highly creditable to those who 
composed it. 

But while the bill of last year was confined to that which alone 
had been a subject of complaint, the bill now beibre us is of a very 
different description. It proposes to raise duties on various other 
articles, besides wool and woollens. It contains some provisions 
which bear, with unnecessary severity, on the whole community; 
others which affect, with peculiar hardship, particular interests; 
while both of them benefit nobody and nothing but the treasury. 
It contains provisions, which, with whatever motive put into it, it is 
confessed are now kept in for the very purpose of destroying the 
bill altogether; or, with the intent to compel those who expect to 
derive benefit, to feel smart from it also. Probably such a motive 
of action has not often been avowed. 

The wool manufacturers think they have made out a case, for 
the interposition of Congress. They happen to live, principally, at 
the north and east; and in a bill, professing to be for their relief, 
other provisions are found, which are supposed, (and supported, 
becmise they are supposed,) to be such as will press, with peculiar 
hardship, on that quarter of the country. Sir, what can b« expect- 
ed, but evil, when a temper like this prevails? How can such a 
hostile, retaliatory legislation be reconciled to common justice, or 
common prudence? Nay, sir, this rule of action seems carried still 
farther. Not only are clauses found, and continued in the bill, 
which oppress particular interests, but taxes are laid, also, which 
will be severely felt by the whole union; and this too with the same 
design, and for the same end before mentioned, of causing the 
smart of the bill to be felt". Of this description is the molasses tax; 
a tax, in my opinion, absurd and preposterous, in relation to any 
object of protectioft; needlessly oppressive to the whole community; 
and benefiting nobody on earth, but the treasury. And yet, here it 
is, and here it is kept, under an idea, conceived in ignorance, and 
cherished for a short lived triumph, that New England will be de- 
terred, by this tax, from protecting her extensive woollen manufac- 
tures; or, if not, that the authors of this policy may at least have 
the pleasure, the high pleasure, of perceiving that she feels the 
effects of this bill. 

Sir, let us look, for a moment, at this tax. The molasses impor- 
ted into the United States amounts to thirteen' millions annually. 
Of this quantity, not more than three millions are distilled; the re- 



313 

mailing TEN millions being consumed, as an article of wholesome 
*^^od. The proposed tax is not to be laid lor revenue. That is not 
pretended. It was not introduced for the benefit of the sugar plan- 
ters. They are contented with their present condition, and have 
applied for nothing. What, then, was the object? Sir, the original 
professed object, was, to increase, by this new duty on molasses, 
the consumption of spirits distilled from grain. This, I say, was 
the object originally professed. But in this point of view, the mea- 
sure appears to me to be preposterous. It is monstrous, and out of 
all proportion and relation of means to ends. It proposes to double 
the duty on the ten millions of gallons of molasses which are con- 
sumed for food, in order that it may likewise double the duty on the 
THREE millions which are distilled into spirits; and all this, for the 
contingent and doubtful purpose of augmenting the consumption of 
spirits distilled from grain. I say contingent and doubtful purpose; 
because I do not believe any such eliect will be produced. I do 
not think a hundred gallons more of spirits distilled from grain will 
find a market in consequence of this tax on molasses. The debate, 
here and elsewere, has shown that, I think, clearly. But suppose 
some slight effect of that kind should be produced; is it so desirable 
an object, as that it should be sought by such means. ^ Shall we tax 
food, to encourage intemperance.? Shall we raise the price of a 
wholesome article of sustenance, of daily consumption, especially 
among the poorer classes, in order that we may enjoy a mere chance 
of causing these same classes to use more of our homemade ar- 
dent spirits? 

Sir, the bare statement of this question puts it beyond the reach 
of all argument. No man will seriously undertake the defence of 
such a tax. It is better, much more candid certainly, to admit, as 
has been admitted, that, obnoxious as it is, and abominable as it is, 
it is kept in the bill with a special view to its effects on New Eng.- 
land votes, and New England interests. 

The bill also takes away all the drawback, allowed by existing 
laws, on the exportation of spirits distilled iVom molasses; and this, 
it is supposed, and truly supposed, will affect New England. It 
will considerably affect her; for the exportation of such spirits is a 
part of her trade, and though not great in amount, it is a part which 
mingles usefully with the exportation of other articles, assists to 
make out variety of cargo, and finds a market in the North of Eu- 
rope, the Mediterranean, and in South America. This exportation 
the bill proposes entirely to destroy. 

The increased duty on molasses, while it thus needlessly and 
wantonly enhances the price to the consumer, may affect also, in a 
greater or less degree, the importation of that article; and be thus 
injurious to the commerce of the country. The importation of mo- 
la.'ises, in exchange for lumber, provisions, and other articles of our 
own production, is one of the largest portions of our West India 
trade; a trade, it may be added, though of small profit, yet of short 
voyages, suited to small capitals, employing many hands, and much 
navigation; and the earliest and oldest branch of our foreign com- 
merce. That portion of this trade which we now enjoy is conduct- 
ed on the freest and most liberal principles. The exports which 

40 cc 



314 

sustain it are from the East, the South, and the West; every part 
of the country having, thus, an interest in its continuance and ex- 
tension. A market for these exports, to any of these portions of the 
country, is infinitely of more importance to it than all the benelit to 
be expected from the supposed increased consumption of spirits dis- 
tilled from grain. 

Yet, sir, this ta.K is to be kept in the bill, that New England may 
be made fo feel. Gentlemen who hold it to be wholly unconstitu- 
tional to lay any tax, whatever, for the purposes intended by this 
bill, yet cordially vote for this tax. An honorable gentleman from 
Maryland, (Mr. Smith,) calls the whole bill a " bill of abomina- 
tions." This tax, he agrees, is one of its abominations, yet he votes 
for it. Both the gentlemen from North Carolina have signified their 
dissatisfaction with the bill, yet they have both voted to double the tax 
on molasses. Sir, do gentlemen flatter themselves that this course of 
policy can answer their purposes.'' Do they not perceive, that such 
a mode of proceeding, with a view to such avowed objects, must 
waken a spirit, that shall treat taunt with scorn, and bid menace de- 
fiance? Do they not know, if they do not, it is time they did, that 
a policy like this, avowed with such self satisfaction, persisted in 
jvith a delight which should only accompany the discovery of some 
new and wonderful improvement in legislation, will compel every 
New England man to feel that he is degraded and debased, if he 
does not resist it? 

Sir, gentlemen mistake us. They greatly mistake us. To those 
who propose to conduct the affairs of government, and to enact laws 
on such principles as these, and for such objects as these. New Eng- 
land, be assured, will exhibit, not submission, but resistance; not 
humiliation, but disdain. Against her, depend on it, nothing will be 
gained by intimidation. If you propose to suffer, yourselves, in 
'order that she may be made to suffer also, she will bid you come 
on — she will meet challenge, with challenge; she will invite you to 
do your worst, and your best, and to see who will hold out longest. 
She has offered you every one of her votes in the Senate to strike 
out this tax on molasses. You have refused to join her, and to 
strike it out. With the aid of the votes of any one southern state, 
for example of North Carolina, it could have been struck out. But 
North Carolina has refused her votes tor this purpose. She has 
voted to keep the tax in, and to keep it in at the highest rate. And 
yet, sir. North Carolina, whatever she may think of it, is fully as 
much interested in this tax as Massachusetts. I think, indeed, she 
is more interested, and that she will feel it more heavily and sorely. 
She is herself a great consumer of the article, throughout all her 
classes of population. This increase of the duty will levy on her 
citizens a new tax of fifty thousand dollars a year, or more; al- 
though her Representatives on this floor have so often told us that 
her people are now poor, and already borne down with taxes. North 
Carolina will feel this tax also in her trade, for what of foreign com- 
merce has she, more useful to her than the West India market for 
her provisions and lumber? And vet the gentlenipu from North 
Carolina insist on keeping this tax in the bill. Let them not, then, 
complain. Let them not hereafter, call it the work of others. It 



315 

is their own work. Let them not lay it to the manufacturers. 
The manufacturers have had nothing to do with it. Let them not 
lay it to the wool-growers. The wool-growers have had nothing to 
do with it. Let them not lay it to New England ISew England 
has done nothing but to oppose it, and to ask them to opi)ose it also. 
No, sir; let them take it to themselves. Let them enjoy the fruit 
of their own doings. Let them assign their motives, for thus taxing 
their own constituents, and abide their judgment; but do not let 
them flatter themselves that New England cannot pay a molasses 
tax as long as North Carolina chooses that such a tax shall be paid. 

Sir, I am sure there is nobody here, envious of the prosperity of 
New England, or who would wish to see it destroyed. But if there 
be such anywhere, I cannot cheer them by holding out the hope of 
a speedy accomplishment of their wishes. The prosperity of New 
England, like that of other parts of the country, may, doubtless, be 
affected injuriously by unwise or unjust laws. It may be impaired, 
especially, by an unsteady and shifting policy, which fosters particu- 
lar objects to-day, and abandons them to-morrow. She may advance 
faster, or slower; but the propelling principle, be assured, is in her, 
deep fixed, and active. Her course is onward and forward. The 
great powers of free labor, of moral habits, of general education, 
of good institutions, of skill, enterprise, and perseverance are all 
working with her, and for her; and on the small surface which her 
population covers, she is destined, I think, to exhibit striking re- 
sults of the operation of these potent causes, in whatever consti- 
tutes the happiness, or belongs to the ornament of human society. 

Mr. President, this tax on molasses will benefit the treasury, 
though it will benefit nobody else. Our finances will, at least, be 
improved by it. I assure the gentlemen, we will endeavour to use 
the funds thus to be raised properly and wisely, and to the public 
advantage. We have already passed a bill for the Delaware break- 
water; another is before us, for the improvement of several of our 
harbors; the Chesapeake and Ohio canal bill has been brought into 
the Senate, while I have been speaking; and next session we hope 
to bring forward the breakwater at Nantucket. These appropria- 
tions, sir, will require pretty ample means ; it will be convenient to 
have a well supplied treasury; and I state for the especial con- 
solation of the honorable gentlemen from North Carolina, that so 
long as they choose to compel their constituents, and my constit- 
uents, to pay a molasses tax, the proceeds thereof shall be appro- 
priated, as far as I am concerned, to valuable national objects, in 
useful and necessary works of internal improvements. 

Mr. President, in what I have now said, I have but followed 
where others have led, and compelled me to follow. I have but 
exhibited to gentlemen the necessary consequences of their own 
course of proceeding. But this manner of passing laws is wholly 
against my own judgment, and repugnant to all my feelings. And I 
would, even now, once more solicit gentlemen to consider, whether 
a difllerent course would not be more worthy of the Senate, and 
more useful to the country. Why should we not act upon this bill, 
article by article, judge fairly of each, retain what a majority 



316 

approves, and reject the rest? If it be, as the gentleman from 
Maryland called it, " a bill of abominations," why not strike out as 
many of the abominations as we can? Extreme measures cannot 
tend to good. They must produce mischief. If a proper and mod- 
erate bill in regard to wool and woollens had passed last year, we 
should not now be in our present situation. If such a bill, extended 
perhaps to a i'ew other articles, if necessity so required, had been 
prepared and recommended at this session, much, both of excitement 
and of evil, would have been avoided. 

Nevertheless, sir, it is for gentlemen to judge for themselves. 
If, when the wool manufacturers think they have a fair right to call 
on Congress to carry into effect what was intended for them by 
the law of 1824, and when there is manifested some disposition to 
comply with what they thus request, the benefit cannot be granted, 
nevertheless, in any other manner than by inserting it in a sort of 
bill of pains and penalties — a " bill of abominations," it is not for me 
to attempt to reason down, what has not been reasoned up; but I 
must content myself with admonishing gentlemen that their policy is 
destined, in all probability, to terminate in their own sore disappoint- 
ment. 

I advert once more, sir, to the subject of wool and woollens, for 
the purpose of showing that, even in respect to that part of the bill, 
the interest mainly protected is not that of the manufacturers. 
On the contrary, it is that of the wool-growers. The wool-grower 
is vastly more benefited than the manufacturer. The interest of 
the manufacturer is treated as secondary, and subordinate, through- 
out the bill. Just so much, and no more, is done for him, as is 
supposed necessary to enable him to purchase and manufacture the 
wool. The agricultural interest, the farming interest, the interest 
of the sheep-owner, is the great object which the bill is calculated 
lo benefit, and which it will benefit, if the manufacturer can be kept 
alive. A comparison of existing duties, with those proposed on the 
wool and on the cloth, will show how this part of the case stands. 

At present, a duty of thirty per cent, ad valorem is laid on all 
wool costing ten cents per pound, or upwards; and a duty of fifteen 
per cent, on all wool under that price. 

^^ The present bill proposes a specific duty of four cents per pound, 
and also an ad valorem duty of fifty per cent, on all wool of every 
description. 

The result of the combination of these two duties, is, that wool 
fit for making good cloths, and costing from thirty to forty cents per 
pound in the foreign market, will pay a duty, at least equal to 
sixty per cent, ad valorem. And wool costing less than ten cents in 
the foreign market, will pay a duty, on the average, of a hundred per 
cent, ad valorem. 

f Now, sir, these heavy duties are laid for the wool-grower. They 
are designed to give a spring to agriculture, by fostering one of its 
most important products. 

But let us see what is done for the manufacturer, in order to 
enable him to manufacture the raw material, at prices so much 
enhanced. 



317 ^ 

As the bill passed the House of Representatives, the advance of 
duties on cloths, is supposed to have been not more than three per 
cent, on the minimum points. Taking the amount of duty to be now 
thirty-seven per cent, ad valorem^ on cloths, this bill, as it came to us, 
proposed, if that supposition be true, only to carry it up to forty. 
Amendments, here adopted, have enhanced this duty, and are under- 
•stood to have carried it up to a duty of forty-five, or perhaps fifty 
per cent, ad valorem. Taking it at the highest, the duty on the 
cloth is raised llmiccn per cent.; while that on wool is raised in some 
instances thirty, and in some instances eighty-Jive per cent.; that is, 
in one case from thirty to sixty, and in the other from fifteen to a hun- 
dred. Now the calculation is said to be true, which supposes, that 
a duty of thirty per cent, on the raw material, enhances, by fifteen 
per cent., the cost of producing the cloth; the raw material being 
estimated, generally, to be equal to half the expense of the fabric. 
So that, while, by this bill, the manufacturer gains thirteen per cent, 
on the cloth, he would appear to lose fifteen per cent, on the same 
cloth by the increase in the price of the wool. And this not only 
would appear to be true, but would, I suppose, be actually true, were 
it not that the market may be open to the manufacturer, under this bill, 
for such cloths as may be furnished at prices intermediate, between 
the graduated prices established by the bill. 

For example; few or no foreign cloths, it is supposed, costing 
more than fifty cents a yard and less than a dollar, will be imported; 
therefore, American cloths, worth more than fifty cents and less than 
a dollar, will find a market. So of the intervals, or intermediate 
spaces, between the other statute prices. In this mode it may be 
hoped that the manufacturers may be sustained, and rendered able 
to carry on the work of converting the raw material, the agricultu- 
ral product of the country, into an article necessary and fit for use. 
And this statement, I think, sufficiently shows, that no farther bene- 
fit or advantage is intended for them, than such as shall barely enable 
them to accomplish that purpose; and that the object, to which all 
others have been made to yield, is the advantage of agriculture. 

And yet, sir, it is on occasion of a bill thus framed, that a loud 
and ceaseless cry has been raised against what is called the cupidity, 
the avarice, the monopolizing spirit of New England manufacturers! 
This is one of the main " abominations of the bill;" to remedy which 
it is proposed to keep in the other abominations. Under the pros- 
pect of advantage held out by the law of 18^24, men have ventured 
their fortunes, and their means of subsistence for themselves and 
families, in woollen manufactures. They have ventured investments 
in objects requiring a large out-lay of capital; in mills, houses, wa- 
ter-works and expensive machinery. Events have occurred, blighting 
their prospects, and withering their hopes. Events, which have de- 
prived them of that degree of succour, which the legislature mani- 
festly intended. They come here asking for relief against an un- 
foreseen occurrence; for remedy against that, which Congress, if 
it had foreseen, would have prevented. And they are told, that 
what they ask is an abomination! They say that an interest impor- 
tant to them, and important to the country, and princi|)ally called 
into existence by the government itself, has received a severe shock, 

cc* 



318 

under which it must sink, if the government will not, by reasonable 
means, endeavour to preserve what it has created. And they are 
met with a volley of hard names, a tirade of reproaches, and a loud 
cry againt capitalists, speculators and stock-jobbers! For one, I 
think them hardly treated; I think, and from the beginning have 
thought, their claim to be a fair one. With how much soever of 
undue haste, or even of credulity, they may be thought to have em- 
barked in these pursuits, under the hopes held out by government, 
I do not feel it to be just that they should be abandoned to their 
fate on the first adverse change of circumstances; although I have 
always seen, and now see, how difficult, perhaps I should rather 
say how impossible, it is, for Congress to act, when such changes 
occur, in a manner at once efficient, but discreet; prompt, but yet 
moderate. 

For these general reasons, and on these grounds, I am decidedly 
in favor of a measure which shall uphold and support, in behalf of 
the manufacturers, the law of 1824, and carry its benefits and ad- 
vantages to the full extent intended. And though I am not altogeth- 
er satisfied with the particular form of these enactments, I am willing 
to take them, in the belief that they will answer an essentially im- 
portant and necessary purpose. 

It is now my painful duty to take notice of another part of the 
bill, which I think in the highest degree objectionable and unreason- 
able; I mean the extraordinary augmentation of the duty on hemp. 
I cannot well conceive anything more unwise or ill-judged than 
this appears to me to be. The duty is already thirty-five dollars 
per ton; and the bill proposes a progressive increase, till it shall 
reach sixty dollars. This will be absolutely oppressive on the ship- 
ping interest, the great consumers of the article. When this duty 
shall have reached its maximum, it will create an annual charge of 
at least one hundred thousand dollars, falling not on the aggregate 
of the commercial interest, but on the ship owner. It is a very 
unequal burden. The navigation of the country has already a hard 
struggle, to sustain itself against foreign competition; and it is sin- 
gular enough, that this interest, which is already so severely tried, 
which pays so much in duties, on hemp, duck, and iron, and which; 
it is now proposed to put under new burdens, is the only interest 
which is subject to a direct tax by a law of Congress. The ton- 
nage duty is such a tax. If this bill should pass in its present form, 
I shall think it my duty, at the earliest suitable opportunity, to bring 
forward a bill for the repeal of the tonnage duty. It amounts, I 
think, to a hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year; and its re- 
moval will be due, in all justice, to the ship owner, if he is to bo 
made subject to a new taxation on hemp and iron. 

But, objectionable as this tax is, from its severe pressure on a 
particular interest, and that at present a depressed interest, there 
are still farther grounds of dissatisfaction with it. It is not calcu- 
lated to effect the object intended by it. If that object be the in- 
crease of the sale of the dew rotted American hemp, the increased 
duty will have little tendency to produce that result; because such 
hemp is so much lower in price, than imported hemp, that it must 
be already used for such purposes as it is fit for. It is said to be 



319 

selling for one hundred and twenty dollars per ton; while the im- 
ported hemp commands two hundred and seventy dollars. The 
proposed duty, therefore, cannot materially assist the sale of Amer- 
ican hemp of this quality and description. 

But the main reason given for the increase, is, the encouragement 
of American water-rotted hemp. Doubtless, this is an important 
object; but I have seen nothing to satisfy me that it can be obtained, 
by means like this. At present, there is produced in the country 
no considerable quantity of water-rotted hemp. It is problematical, 
at best, whether it can be produced under any encouragement. The 
hemp may be grown, doubtless, in various parts of the United States, 
as well as in any country in the world; but the process of preparing 
it for use, by water-rotting, I believe to be more difficult and labori- 
ous than is generally thought among us. I incline to think, that, 
happily for us, labor is in too much demand, and commands too high 
prices, to allow this process to be carried on profitably. Other 
objections, also, beside the amount of labor required, may, perhaps, 
be found to exist, in climate, and in the effects liable to be produced 
on health, in warm countries, by the nature of the process. But 
whether there be foundation for these suggestions, or not, the fact 
still is, that we do not produce the article. It cannot, at present, be 
had at any price. To augment the duty, therefore, on foreign hemp, 
can only have the effect of compelling the consumer to pay so much 
more money into the treasury. The proposed increase, then, is 
doubly objectionable ; first, because it creates a charge, not to be 
borne equally by the whole country, but a new and heavy charge, 
to be borne exclusively by one particular interest ; and, second, 
because, that of the money raised by this charge, little or none goes 
to accomplish the professed object, by aidnig the hemp grower; 
but the whole, or nearly the whole, falls into the treasury. Thus 
the effect will be in no way proportioned to the cause, nor the 
advantage obtained by some, at all equal to the hardship imposed on 
others. While one interest will suffer much, the other interest will 
gain little or nothing. 

I am quite willing to make a thorough and fair experiment, on 
the subject of water-retted hemp; but I wish, at the same time, to 
do this in a manner that shall not oppress individuals, or particular 
classes. I intend, therefore, to move an amendment, which will con- 
sist in striking out so much of the present bill as raises the duty on 
hemp, higher than it is at present, and in inserting a clause, mak- 
ing it the duty of the Navy Department to purchase, for the public 
service, American water-rotted hemp, whenever it can be had of a 
suitable quality; provided it can be purchased at a rate not exceed- 
ing, by more than twenty per cent., the current price of imported 
hemp, of the same quality. If this amendment should be adopted, 
the ship-owner would have no reason to complain, as the price o^the 
Article would not be enchanced, to him; and at the same time, the 
hemp grower, who shall try the experiment, will be made sure of a cer- 
tain market, and a high price. The existing duty of thirty-five dol- 
lars per ton will remain to be still borne by the ship-owner. The 
twenty per cent, advance, on the price of imported hemp, will be equal 



320 

to fifty dollars per ton; the aggregate will be eighty-five dollars; 
and this, it must be admitted, is a liberal and etlective provision, 
and will secure everything which can be reasonably desired, by the 
hemp-grower, in the most ample manner. 

But, il'the bill should become a law, and go into operation in its 
present shape, this duty on hemp is likely to defeat its own object in 
another way. Very intelligent persons entertain the opinion, that 
the consequence of this high duty will be such, that American ves- 
sels, engaged in foreign commerce, will, to a great extent, supply 
themselves with cordage abroad. This, of course, will diminish the 
consumption at home, and thus injure the hemp-grower, and at the 
same time, the manufacturer of cordage. Again; there may be 
reason to fear, that as the duty is not raised on cordage manufac- 
tured abroad, such cordage may be imported, in greater or less de- 
gree, in the place of the unmanufactured article. Whatever view 
we take, therefore, of this hemp duty, it appears to me altogether 
objectionable. 

Much has been said of the protection which the navigation of the 
country has received, from the discriminating duties on tonnage, 
and the exclusive enjoyment of the coasting trade. In my opinion, 
neither of these measures has materially sustained the shipping in- 
terest of the United States. I do not concur in the sentiments, on 
that point, quoted from Dr. Seybert's statistical work. Dr. Seybert 
was an intelligent and worthy man, and compiled a valuable book; 
but he was engaged in public lite at a time, when it was more fash- 
ionable than it has since become, to ascribe efficacy to discriminat- 
ing duties. The shipping interest in this country has made its way 
by its own enterprise. By its own vigorous exertion, it spread itself 
over the seas, and by the same exertion, it still holds its place there. 
It seems idle to talk of the benefit and advantage of discriminating 
duties, when they operate against us, on one side of the ocean, 
quite as much as they operate for us on the other. To suppose 
that two nations, having intercourse with each other, can secure, 
each to itself, a decided advantage in that intercourse, is little less 
than absurdity; and this is the absurdity of discriminating duties. 
Still less reason is there for the idea, that our own ship-owners hold 
the exclusive enjoyment of the coasting trade, only by virtue of the 
law, which secures it to their exclusive employment. Look at the 
rate of freights. Look at the manner in which this coasting trade is 
conducted, by our own vessels, and the competition which subsists 
between them. In a majority of instances, probably, these vessels 
are owned, in whole or in part, by those who navigate them. These 
owners are at home, at one end ot the voyage; and repairs and sup- 
plies are thus obtained in the cheapest and most economical manner. 
JVo foreign vessels would be able to partake in this trade, even by 
then^id of preferences and bounties. 

The shipping interest of this country requires only an open field, 
and a fair chance. Everything else it will do for itself. But, it 
has not a fair chance, while it is so severely taxed, in whatever enters 
into the necessary expense of building and equipment. In this re- 
spect, its rivals have advantages which may in the end prove to be 



321 

decisive against us. I entreat the Senate to examine and weigh 
this subject, and not go on, bhndly, to unknown consequences. 
The English ship-owner is carel'ully regarded by his government, 
and aided and succoured, whenever and wherever necessary, by a 
sharp-sighted policy. Both he and the American ship-owner obtain 
their hemp from Russia. But observe the difference. The duty 
on hemp in England is but twenty-one dollars; here, it is proposed 
to make it sixty; notwithstanding its cost here is necessarily en- 
hanced by an additional freight, proportioned to a voyage, longer 
than that which brings it to' the English consumer, by the whole 
breadth of the Atlantic. Sir, I wish to invoke the Senate's atten- 
tion, earnestly, to this subject; I would awaken the regard of the 
whole government, more and more, not only on this but on all ©cca- 
sions, to this great national interest; an interest, which lies at the 
very foundation, both of our commercial prosperity and our navaJ 
achievement 



41 



SPEECH 



UPON THE PANAMA MISSION ; DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRE- 
SENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL, 1826. 

The f<)lli)\ving Resolution being under consideration, in Committee of the Whole House 
upon tlie stute of the Union, viz • 

" Resolved, That in the opinion of the House it is expedient to appropriate the funds 
nece,-s;iry to enable the President of the United States to send Ministers to the Congress 
of Panama." 

Mr. McLane, of Delaware, submitted the following amendment thereto, viz : 

" It being understood as the opinion of this House, that, as it has alwajs been the settled 
policy (if lliis Government, in extending our commercial relations with foreign nations, to 
have with them as little political connexion as possible, to preserve peace, commerce, and 
frien^lsliip, with all nations, and to form entangling alliances with none; the Jlinisters who 
may lie sent shall attend at the said Congress in a diplomatic character merely ; and ought 
not to be authorised to discuss, consider, or consult, upon any proposition of alliance, offen- 
sive or tlefcnsive, between this country and any of the Spanish American Governments, or 
any stipulation, compact, or declaration, binding the United States in any way, or to any 
extent, to resist interference from aliroad, with tile domestic concerns of the aforesaid Gov- 
ernments ; or any measure which shall commit the present or future neutral rights or duties 
of these United States, either as may regard European nations, or between the several 
States of Mexico and South America : leaving the United States free to adopt, in any event 
which may hap(X!n, afl'ecting the relations of the South American Governments, with each 
other, or with foreign nations, such measures as the friendly disposition cherished by the 
American People towards the People of those States, and 44 honor and interest of this na 
tion may n'(|Mire ;" 

To wliich Jlr.RivES proposed to add, after the words "aforesaid Governments," the 
following : 

" Or any compact or engagement by which the United States shall be pledged to the 
Spanish American States, to maintain, by force, the principle that no part of die American 
continent is henceforward subject to colonization by any European power." — 

The i)receding moii(jns to amend being under consideration, Mr. Webster addressed the 
Committee as follows : — 

JMr. Chairman, — I am not ambitious of amplifying this discussion. 
On the contrary, it is my anxious wish to confine the debate, so far 
as 1 partake in it, to the real and material questions before us. 

Our judgment of things is liable, doubtless, to be affected by our 
opinions of men. It would be afiectation in me, or in any one, to 
claim an exemption from this possibility of bias. 1 can say, howev- 
er, tiiat it has Ix-en my sincere pinpose to consider and discuss the 
present subject, with the single view of finding out what duty it de 



323 

volves upon me, as a member of the House of Representatives. 
If anything has diverted me from that sole aim, it has been against 
my intention. 

I think, sir, that there are two questions, and two only, for our de- 
cision. The first is, whether the House of Representatives will as- 
sume the responsibility of withholding the ordinary appropriation, 
for carrying into effect an Executive measure, which the Executive 
department has constitutionally instituted? The second, whether if 
it will not withhold the appropriation, it will yet take the responsi- 
bility of interposing, with its own opinions, directions or instructions, 
as to the manner in which this particular Executive measure shall 
be conducted? 

I am, certainly, in the negative, on both these propositions. I am 
neither willing to refuse the appropriation, nor am I willing to limit 
or restrain the discretion of the Executive, beforehand, as to the 
manner in which it shall perform its own appropriate constitutional 
duties. And, sir, those of us who hold these opinions have the ad- 
vantage of being on the common highway of our national politics. 
We propose nothing new; we suggest no change; we adhere to the 
uniform practice of the government, as I understand it, from its ori- 
gin. It is for those, on the other hand,, who are in favor of either, 
or both, of the propositions, to show us the cogent reasons which 
recommend thejr adoption. The duty is on them, to satisfy the 
House and the country that there is something in the present occa- 
sion which calls for such an extraordinary and unprecedented in 
terference. 

The President and Senate have instituted a public mission, for 
the purpose of treating with foreign States. The Constitution gives 
to the President the power of appointing, with the consent of the 
Senate, Embassadors, and other public ministers. Such appoint- 
ment is, therefore, a clear and unquestionable exercise of Executive 
power. It is, indeed, less connected with the appropriate duties of 
this House, than almost any other Executive act; because the of- 
fice of a public minister is not created by any statute or law of our 
own government. It exists under the law of nations, and is recog- 
nised as existing by our Constitution. The acts of Congress, in- 
deed, limit the salaries of public ministers; but they do no more. 
Everything else, in regard to the appointment of public ministers, 
their numbers, the time of their appointment, and the negotiations 
contemplated in such appointments, is matter for Executive discre- 
tion. Every new appointment to supply vacancigs in existing mis- 
sions, is under the same authority. There are, indeed, what we 
commonly term standing missions, so known in the practice of the 
government, but they are not made permanent by any law. All 
missions rest on the same ground. Now the question is, whether 
the President and Senate, having created this mission, or, in other 
words, having appointed the ministers, in the exercise of their un- 
doubted constitutional power, this House will take upon itself the 
responsibility of defeating its objects, and rendering this exercise 
of Executive power void? 

By voting the salaries, in the ordinary way, we assume, as it 
seems to me, no responsibility whatever. VVe merely empower 



324 

another branch of the government to discharge its own appropriate 
duties, in that mode which seems to itself most conducive to the 
pu!)lic interests. We are, by so voting, no more responsible for 
the manner in which the negotiation shall be conducted, than we 
are for the manner in which one of the Heads of Department may 
discharge the duties of his office. 

On the other hand, if we withhold the ordinary means, we do in- 
cur a heavy responsibility. We interfere, as it seems to me, to 
prevent the action of the Government, according to constitutional 
forms and provisions. It ought constantly to be remembered that 
our whole power, in the case, is merely incidental. It is only be- 
cause public ministers must have salaries, like other officers, and 
because no salaries can be paid, but by our vote, that the subject is 
referred to us at all. The Constitution vests the power of appoint- 
ment in the President and Senate; the law gives to the President 
even the power of fixing the amount of salary, within certain limits; 
and the only question, here, is upon the appropriation. There is 
no doubt that we have the power, if we see fit to exercise it, to 
break up the mission, by withholding the salaries; we have power 
also to break up the Court, by withholding the salaries of the 
Judges, or to break up the office of President, by withholding the 
salary provided for it by law. All these things, it is true, we have 
the power to do, since we hold the keys of the Treasury. But, 
then, can we rightfully exercise this power.'' The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, (Mr. Buchanan,) with whom I have great pleasure 
in concurring on this part of the case, while I regret that I differ 
with him on others, has placed this question in a point of view 
which cannot be improved. These officers do, indeed, already ex- 
ist. They are public ministers. If they were to negotiate a trea- 
ty, and the Senate should ratify it, it would become a law of the 
land, whether we voted their salaries or not. This shows that the 
Constitution never contemplated that the House of Representatives 
should act a part in originating negotiations, or concluding treaties. 

I know, sir, it is a useless labor to discuss the kind of power which 
this House incidentally holds in these cases. Men will differ in that 
particular; and as the forms of public business and of the Constitu- 
tion are such, that the power may be exercised by this House, there 
will always be some, or always may be some, who feel inclined to 
exercise it. For myself, I feel bound not to step out of my own 
sphere, and neither to exercise nor control any authority, of which 
the Constitution has intended to lodge the free and unrestrained ex- 
ercise in other hrtnds. Cases of extreme necessity, in which a re- 
gard to public safety is to be the supreme law, or rather to take place 
of all law, must be allowed to provide for themselves, when they 
arise. Reasoning from such possible cases, will shed no light on the 
general path of our constitutional duty. 

Mr. Chairman: I have a habitual and very sincere respect for the 
opinions of the gentleman from Delaware. And I can say with truth, 
that he is the last man in the House from whom I should have look- 
ed for this proposition of amendment, or from whom I should have 
expected to hear some of the reasons which he has given in its sup- 
port. He says, that, in this matter, the source from which the mea- 



325 

sure springs should have no influence with us whatever. I do not 
comprehend this; and I cannot but think the honorable gentleman 
has been surprised into an expression which does not convey his 
meaning. This measure comes from the Executive, and it is an ap- 
propriate exercise of Executive Power. How is it, then, that we 
are to consider it as entirely an open question for us; as if it were a 
legislative measure originating with ourselves? In deciding whether 
we will enable the Executive to exercise his own duties, are we to 
consider whether we should have exercised them in the same way 
ourselves? And if we difler in opinion with the President and Sen- 
ate, are we on that account to retuse the ordinary means? I thhik 
not; unless we mean to say that we will exercise ourselves, all the 
powers of the Government. 

But the gentleman argues, that although, generally, such a course 
would not be proper, yet, in the present case, the President has es- 
pecially referred the matter to our opinion; that he has thrown off, 
or attempted to throw off, his own constitutional responsibility; or, at 
least, that he proposes to divide it with us; that he requests our ad- 
vice, and that we, having referred that request to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, have now received from that Committee their Re- 
port thereon. 

Sir, this appears to me a very mistaken view of the subject; but 
if it were all so — if our advice and opinion had thus been asked, it 
would not alter the line of our duty. We cannot take, though it 
were offered, any share in Executive duty. We cannot divide their 
own proper responsibility with other branches of the Government. 
The President cannot properly ask, and we cannot properly give, our 
advice, as to the manner in which he shall discharge his duties. He 
cannot shift the responsibility from himself; and we cannot assume 
it. Such a course, sir, would confound all that is distinct in the con- 
stitutional assignment of our respective functions. It would break 
down all known divisions of power, and put an end to all just respon- 
sibility. If the President were to receive directions or advice from 
us, in things pertaining to the duties of his own office, what becomes 
of his responsibility to us, and to the Senate ? We hold the impeach- 
ing power. We are to bring him to trial in any case of maladmin- 
istration. The Senate are to judge him by the Constitution and laws; 
and it would be singular, indeed, if, when such occasion should 
arise, the party accused should have the means of sheltering himself 
under the advice or opinions of his accusers. Nothing can be more 
incorrect, or more dangerous, than this pledging tiie House before- 
hand, to any opinion, as to the manner of discharging Executive 
duties. 

But, sir, I see no evidence whatever, that the President has ask- 
ed us to take this measure upon ourselves, or to divide the respon- 
sibility of it with him. I see no such invitation or request. The 
Senate having concurred in the mission, the President has sent a 
message, requesting the appropriation, in the usiuil and common 
form. Another message is sent, in answer to a call of the House, 
comniu.nirating the correspondence, and setting forth the objects of 
the mission. It is contended, that by this message he asks o,ur ad- 
vice, or refers the subject to our opinion. I do not so understand it. 



Our concurrence, he says, by making the appropriation, is subject 
to our free determination. Doubtless it is so. If we determine at 
all, we sball determine freely; and the message does no more than 
leave to ourselves to decide how far we feel ourselves bound, either 
to support or to thwart the Executive Department, in the exercise 
of its duties. There is no message, no document, no communication 
to us, which asks for our concurrence, otherwise than as we shall 
manifest it by making the appropriation. 

Undoubtedly, sir, the President would be glad to know that the 
measure met the approbation of the House. He must be aware, 
unquestionably, that all leading measures mainly depend for success 
on the support of Congress. Still, there is no evidence that on this 
occasion he has sought to throw off responsibility from himself, or 
that he desires us to be answerable for anything beyond the discharge 
of our own constitutional duties. I have already said, sir, that I 
know of no precedent for such a proceeding as the amendment pro- 
posed by the gentleman from Delaware. None which I think anal- 
ogous has been cited. The resolution of the House, some years 
ago, on the subject of the slave-trade, is a precedent the other way. 
A committee had reported that, in order to put an end to the slave- 
trade, a mutual right of search might be admitted and arranged by 
nco-otiation. But this opinion was not incorporated, as the gentleman 
now proposes to incorporate his amendment, into the resolution of 
the House. The resolution only declared, in general terms, that the 
President be requested to enter upon such negotiations vyith other 
powers as he might deem expedient, for the effectual abolition of the 
African slave-trade. It is singular enough, and may serve as an 
admonition on the present occasion, that a negotiation having been 
concluded, in conformity to the opinions expressed, not, indeed, by 
the House, but by the committee, the treaty, when laid before the 
Senate, was rejected by that body. 

The gentleman from Delaware himself says, that the Constitution- 
al responsibility pertains alone to the Executive Department: and 
that none other has to do with it, as a public measure. These ad- 
missions seem to me to conclude the question; because, in the first 
place, if the Constitutional responsibility appertains alone to the 
President, he cannot devolve it on us, if he would; and because, in 
the second place, I see no proof of any intention, on his part, so to 
devolve it on us, even if he had the power. 

Mr. Chairman: I will here take occasion, in order to prevent mis- 
apprehension, to observe, that no one is more convinced than I am, 
that it is the right of this House, and often its duty, to express its 
general opinion in regard to questions of foreign policy. Nothing, 
certainly, is more proper. I have concurred in such proceedmgs, 
and amready to do so again. On those great subjects, lor instance, 
which form the leading topics in this discussion, it is not only the 
right of the House to express its opinions, but I think it its duty to 
do so, if it should think the Executive to be pursuing a general 
course of policy which the House itself will not ultimately ap|)rove 
But tliat is something entirely different from the present suggestion. 
Here it is proposed to decide, l)y our vote, what shall be discussed 
by particular ministers, already appointed, when they shall meet the 



327 

ministers of the other powers. This is not a general expression of 
opinion. It is a particular direction, or a special instruction. Its 
operation is limited to the conduct of particular men, on a particular 
occasion. Such a thing, sir, is wholly unprecedented in our history. 
When the House proceeds, in the accustomed way, by general reso- 
lution, its sentiments apply, as far as expressed, to all public agents, 
and on all occasions. They apply to the whole course of policy, 
and must, necessarily, be felt everywhere. But if we proceed by 
way of direction to particular ministers, we must direct them all. 
In short, we must ourselves furnish, in all cases, diplomatic instruc- 
tions. 

We now propose to prescribe what our ministers shall discuss, and 
what they shall not discuss, at Panama. But there is no subject 
coming up for discussion at Panama, which might not also be pro- 
posed for discussion either here or at Mexico, or in the Capital of 
Colombia. If we direct what our ministers at Panama shall or 
shall not say on the subject of Mr. Monroe's declaration, for exam- 
ple, why should we not proceed to say also what our other ministers 
abroad, or our Secretary at home, shall say on the same subject? 
There is precisely the same reason for one, as for the other. The 
course of the House, hitherto, sir, has not been such. It has ex~ 
pressed its opinions, when it deemed proper to express them at all, 
on great, leading questions, by resolution, and in a general form. 
These general opinions, being thus made known, have doubtless 
always had, and such expressions of opinion doubtless always will 
have, their effect. — This is the practice of thie Government. It is a 
salutary practice; but if we carry it farther, or rather if we adopt a 
very diflerent practice, and undertake to prescribe to our public 
ministers what they shall discuss, and what they shall not discuss, 
we take upon ourselves that which, in my judgment, does not at all 
belong to us. I see no more propriety in our deciding now, in what 
manner these ministers shall discharge their duty, than there would 
have in our prescribing to the President and Senate what persons 
ought to have been appointed ministers. 

An honorable member from Virginia, who spoke some days ago, 
(Mr. Rives,) seems to go still farther than the member from Dela- 
ware. He maintains, that we may distinguish between the various 
objects contemplated by the Executive in the proposed negotiation; 
and adopt some and reject others. And this high, delicate, and impor- 
tant trust, the gentleman deduces simply from our power to withhold 
the minister's salaries. The process of the gentleman's argument 
appears to me as singular as its conclusion. He founds himself on 
the legal maxim, that he who has the power to give, may annex 
whatever condition or qualification to the gift he chooses. This 
maxim, sir, would be applicable to the present case, if we were the 
sovereigns of the country; if all power were in our hands; if the 
public money were entirely our own; if our appropriation of it were 
mere grace and favor; and if there were no restraints upon us, but 
our own sovereign will and pleasure. But the argument totally 
forgets that we are ourselves but public agents; that our power over 
the Treasury is but that of stewards over a trust fund; that we have 
nothing to give, and therefore no gifts to Ihnit, or qualify; that it in 



328 

as much our duty to appropriate to proper objects, as to withhold 
appropriations from such as are improper; and that it is as much, 
and as clearly, our duty to appropriate in a proper and Constitu- 
tional manner, as to appropriate at all. 

The same honorable member advanced another idea, in which I 
cannot concur. He does not admit that confidence is to be reposed 
in the Executive, on the present occasion, because confidence, he 
argues, implies only, that not knowing ourselves what will be done 
in a given case by others, we trust to those who are to act in it, 
that they will act right; and as we know the course likely to be 
pursued in regard to this subject, by the Executive, confidence can 
have no place. This seems a singular notion of confidence; cer- 
tainly is not my notion of that confidence which the Constitution 
requires one branch of the Government to repose in another. The 
President is not our agent, but like ourselves, the agent of the 
People. They have trusted to his hands the proper duties of his 
office: and we are not to take those duties out of his hands, from 
any opinion of our own that we should execute them better our- 
selves. The confidence which is due from us to the Executive, and 
from the Executive to us, is not personal, but official and Constitu- 
tional. It has nothing to do with individual likings or dislikings; 
but results from that division of power among departments, and 
those limitations on the authority of each, which belong to the na- 
ture and frame of our government. 

It would be unfortunate, indeed, if our line of Constitutional ac- 
tion were to vibrate, backward and forward, according to our opin- 
ions of persons, swerving this way to day, from undue attachment, 
and the other way to-morrow, from distrust or dislike. This may 
sometimes happen from the weakness of our virtues, or the excite- 
ment of our passions; but I trust it will not be coolly recommended 
to us, as the rightful course of j)ublic conduct. 

It is obvious to remark, Mr, Chairman, that the Senate have not 
undertaken to give directions or instructions in this case. That 
body is closely connected with the President in Executive measures. 
Its consent to these veiy appointments is made absolutely necessary 
by the Constitution; yet it has not seen fit, in this or any other case, 
to take upon itself the responsibility of directing the mode in which 
the nejjotiations should be conducted. 

For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I am for givmg no mstructions, 
advice, or directions, in the case. I prefer leaving it where, in my 
judgment, the Constitution has left it — to Executive discretion and 
Executive responsibility. 

But, sir, I think there are other objections to the amendment. 
Tliere are parts of it which I could not agree to, if it were proper 
to attach any such condition to our vote. As to all that part of the 
amendment, indeed, which asserts the neutral policy of the United 
States, and the inexpediency of forming alliances, no man assents 
to those sentiments more readily, or more sincerely, than myself. 
On these points, Ave are all agreed. Such is our opinion; such, 
the President assures us, in terms, is his opinion; such we know to 
be the opinion of the country. If it be thought necessary to affirm 
opinions which no one either denies or doubts, by a resolution of 



329 

the House, I shall cheerfully concur in it. But there is one part 
of the proposed amendment to which I could not agree, in any form, 
I wish to ask the gentleman from Delaware himself to reconsider 
it. I pray him to look at it again, and to see whether he means 
what it expresses or implies; for, on this occasion, I should be more 
gratified by seeing that the honorable gentleman himself had be- 
come sensible that he had fallen into some error, in this respect, 
than by seeing the vote of the House against him by any majority 
whatever. 

That part of the amendment to which I now object, is that which 
requires, as a condition of the resolution before us, that the ministers 
" shall not be authorised to discuss, consider, or consult upon any 
measure which shall commit the present or future neutral rights or 
duties of these United States, either as may regard European na- 
tions, or between the several States of Mexico and South America." 

I need hardly repeat, that this amounts to a precise instruction. 
It being understood that the ministers shall not be authorised to 
discuss particular subjects, is a mode of speech precisely equivalent 
to saying, provided the ministers be instructed, or the ministers be- 
ing instructed, not to discuss those subjects. After all that has 
been said, or can be said, about this amendment being no more than 
a general expression of opinion, or abstract proposition, this part 
of it is an exact and definite instruction. It prescribes to public 
ministers the precise manner in which they are to conduct a public 
negotiation; a duty manifestly and exclusively belonging, in my 
judgment, to the Executive, and not to us. 

But if we possessed the power to give instructions, this instruc- 
tion would not be proper to be given. Let us examine it. The 
ministers shall not " discuss, consider, or consult," &.c. 

Now, sir, in the first place, it is to be observed, that they are not 
only not to agree to any such measure, but they are not to discuss 
it. If proposed to them, they are not to give reasons for declining 
it. Indeed they cannot reject it; they can only say they are not 
authorised to consider it. Would it not be better, sir, to leave these 
agents at liberty to explain the policy of our Government, fully and 
clearly, and to show the reasons which induce us to abstain, as far 
as possilile, from foreign connexions, and to act, in all things, with 
a scrupulous regard to the duties of neutrality.'' 

But again: they are to discuss no measure which may commit 
our neutral rights or duties. To commit is somewhat indefinite. 
JVIay they not modify nor in any degree alter our neutral rigiits 
and duties.' If not, I hardly know whether a connuon treaty of 
commerce could be negotiated; because all such treaties atlect 
or modify, more or less, the neutral rights or duties of the parties; 
especially all such treaties as our habitual policy leads us to form. 
But I suppose the author of the amendment uses the word in a 
larger and higher sense. He means that the ministers shall not 
discuss or consider any measure which may have a tendency, in any 
degree, to place us in a hostile attitude towards any foreign State. 
And here, again, one cannot help repeating, that the injunction is, 
not to propose or assent to anv such measure, b\it nf)t to consider it, 
not to answer it, if proposed; not to resist it with reasons.' 

42 DD* 



330 

But, if this objection were removed, still the instruction could 
not properly be given. What important or leading measure is there, 
connected with our foreign relations, which can be adopted, without 
the possibility of committing us to the necessity of a hostile attitude? 
Any assertion of our plainest rights may, by possibility, have that 
effect. The author of the amendment seems to suppose that our 
pacific relations can never be changed, but by our own option. He 
seems not to be aware that other states may compel us, in defence 
of our own rights, to measures, which, in their ultimate tendency, 
may commit our neutrality. Let me ask, if the ministers of other 
powers, at Panama, should signify to our agents that it was in con- 
templation immediately to take some measure which these agents 
know to be hostile to our policy, adverse to our rights, and such as 
we could not submit to — should they be left free to speak the senti- 
ments of their Government, to protest against the measure, and to 
declare that the United States would not see it carried into effect? 
Or should they, as this amendment proposes, be enjoined silence, 
let the measure proceed, and afterwards, when, perhaps, we go to 
war to redress the evil, we may learn that if our objections had been 
fairly and frankly stated, the step would not have been taken? 
Look, sir, to the very case of Cuba — the most delicate, and vastly 
the most important point in all our foreign relations. Do gentle- 
men think they exhibit skill or statesmanship, in laying such re- 
straints as they propose on our ministers, in regard to this subject, 
among others? It has been made matter of complaint, that the 
Executive has not used, already, a more decisive tone towards 
Mexico and Colombia, in regard to their designs on this Island. 
Pray, sir, what tone could be taken, under these instructions? Not 
one word — not one single word could be said on the subject. If 
asked whether the United States would consent to the occupation 
of that Island by those republics, or to its transfer by Spain to a 
European power; or whether we should resist such occupation or 
such transfer, what could they say? " That is a matter we cannot 
discuss, and cannot consider — it would commit our neutral relations 
— we are not at liberty t^express the sentiments of our Government 
on the subject: we have nothing at all to say." Is this, sir, what 
gentlemen wish, or what tKey would recommend? 

If, sir, we give these instructions, and they should be obeyed, and 
mconvenience or evil result, who is answerable? And I suppose it 
is expected they will be obeyed. Certainly it cannot be uitended to 
give them, and not to take the responsibility of consequences, if they 
be followed. It cannot be intended to hold the President answer- 
able both ways; first, to obey our instructions, and, secondly, for 
having obeyed them, if evil comes from obeying them. 

Sir, events may change. If we had the power to give instruc- 
tions, and if these proposed instructions were proper to be given, 
before we arrive at our own homes, atlairs may take a new direction, 
and the public interest require new and corresponding orders to our 
agents abroad. 

This is said to be an extraordinary case, and, on that account, to 
justify our interference. If the fait were true, the consequence 
would not follow. If it be the exercise of a power assigned by the 



331 



Constitution to the Executive, it can make no difTerence whether 
the occasion be common or uncommon. But, in truth, there luive 
been much stronger cases for the interference of the House, where, 
nevertheless, the House has not interfered. For example; in the 
negotiations for peace carried on at Ghent. In that case, Congress, 
by both Houses, had declared war, for certain alleged causes. Af- 
ter the war had lasted some years, the President, with the advice of 
the Senate, appointed ministers to treat of peace; and he gave them 
such instructions as he saw fit. Now, as the war was declared by 
Congress, and was waged to obtain certain ends, it would have been 
plausible to say that Congress ought to know the instructions \mder 
which peace was to be negotiated, that they might see whether the 
objects for which the war was declared, had been abandoned. Yet 
no such claim was set up. The President gave instructions, such 
as his judgment dictated, and neither House asserted any right of 
interference. 

Sir, there are gentlemen in this House, opposed to this mission, 
who, I hope, will nevertheless consider this question of amendment 
on general Constitutional grounds. They are gentlemen of much 
estimation in the community, likely, I hope, long to continue in the 
public service; and, I trust, they will well reflect on the effect of 
this amendment on the separate powers and duties of the several de- 
partments of the government. 

An honorable member from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Hemphill,) has 
alluded to a resolution introduced by me the session before the last. 
I should not have referred to it myself, had he not invited the refer- 
ence; but I am happy in the opportunity of showing how that reso- 
lution coincides with everything which I say to day What was that 
resolution? When an mteresting people were struggling for na- 
tional existence against a barbarous despotism, when there were 
good hopes, (hopes, yet, I trust, to be fully realized,) of their suc- 
cess, and when the Holy Alliance had pronounced against them cer- 
tain false and abominable doctrines, I moved the House to resolve 
— what? Simply, that provision ought to be made by law to defray 
the expense of an agent or commissioner to that country, whenever 
the President should deem it expedient to make such appointment. 
Did I propose any instruction to the President, or any limit on h'rs 
discretion? None at all, sir; none at all. What resemblance then 
can be found between that resolution and this amendment? I^et 
those who think any such resemblance exists, adopt, if they will, the 
words of the resolution, as a substitute for this amendment. We 
shall gladly take them. 

I am, therefore, Mr. Chairman, against the amendment; not only 
as not being a proper manner of exercising any power belonging to 
this House; but also as not containing instructions lit to be given, if 
we possessed the power of giving them. And as my vote will rest 
on these grounds, 1 might terminate my remarks here: but the dis- 
cussion has extended over a broader surface, and following where 
others have led, I will ask your indulgence to a few observations on 
the more general topics of the debate. 

Mr. Chairman: it is our fortune to be called u[)on to act our part, 
as public men, at a most interesting era in human affairs. The 



332 

short period of your life, and of mine, has been thick and crowded 
with the most important events. Not only new interests and new 
relations have sprung up among States, but new societies, new na- 
tions, and families of nations, have risen to take their places, and 
perform their parts, in the order and the intercourse of the world. 
Every man, aspiring to the character of a statesman, must endeavour 
to enlarge his views to meet this new state of things. He must aim 
ai adequate comprehension, and instead of being satisfied with that 
narrow political sagacity, which, like the power of minute vision, 
sees small things accurately, but can see nothing else, he must look 
to the far horizon, and embrace, in his broad survey, whatever the 
series of recent events has brought into connexion, near or remote, 
with the country whose interests he studies to serve. We have seen 
eight States, formed out of colonies on our own continent, assume 
the rank of nations. 

This is a mighty revolution, and when we consider what an extent 
of the surface of the globe they cover; through what climates they 
extend; what population they contain, and what new impulses they 
must derive from this change of government, we cannot but perceive 
that great effects are likely to be produced on the intercourse, and 
the interests of the civilized world. Indeed, it has been forcibly 
said, by the intelligent and distinguished statesman who conducts 
the foreign relations of England, that when we now speak of Eu- 
rope and the world, we mean Europe and America; and that the 
different systems of these two portions of the globe, and their seve- 
ral and various interests, must be thoroughly studied and nicely 
balanced by the statesmen of the times. 

In many respects, sir, the European and the American nations are 
alike. They are alike Christian States, civilized States, and com- 
mercial States. They have access to the same common fountains 
of intelligence; they all draw from those sources which belong to 
the whole civilized world. In knowledge and letters — in the arts of 
peace and war, they differ in degrees; but they bear, nevertheless, 
a general resemblance. On the other hand, in matters of govern- 
ment and social institution, the nations on this continent are founded 
upon principles which never did prevail, in considerable extent, 
either at any other time, or in any other place. There has never been 
presented to the mind of man a more interesting subject of contem- 
plation than the establishment of so many nations in America, par- 
taking in the civilisation and in the arts of the old world, but having 
left behind them those cumbrous institutions which had their origin 
in a dark and military age. Whatsoever European experience has 
developed favorable to the freedom and the happiness of man; what- 
soever European genius has invented for his improvement or grati- 
fication; whatsoever of refinement or polish the culture of European 
society presents for his adoption and enjoyment — all this is offered to 
man in America, with the additional advantages of the full power of 
erecting forms of government on free and simple principles, without 
ovi rturning institutions suited to times long passed, but too strongly 
supported, either by interests or prejudices, to l)e shaken without 
convulsions. This unprecedented state of things presents the hap- 
piest of all occasions for an attempt to establish national intercourse 



333 

upon improA^ed principles; upon principles tending to peace, and the 
mutual prosperity of nations. In this respect America, the whole 
of America, has a new career before her. If we look back on tlie 
history of Europe, we see how great a portion of the last two cen- 
turies her States have been at w ar for interests connected mainly 
with her feudal monarchies; wars for particular dynasties; wars to 
support or defeat particular successions; wars to enlarge or curtail 
the dominions of particular crowns; wars to support or to dissolve 
family alliances; wars, in fine, to enforce or to resist religious intol- 
erance. What long and bloody chapters do these not fill, in the his- 
tory of European politics! Who does not see, and who does not 
rejoice to see, that America has a glorious chance of escaping, at 
least, these causes of contention.? Who does not see, and wdio does 
not rejoice to see, that, on this continent, under other forms of gov- 
ernment, we have before us the noble hope of being able, by the 
mere influence of civil liberty and religious toleration, to dry up 
these outpouring fountains of blood, and to extinguish these con- 
suming fires of war. The general opinion of the age favors such 
hopes and such prospects. There is a growing disposition to treat 
the intercourse of nations more like the useful intercourse of friends; 
philosophy — just views of national advantage, good sense and the 
dictates of a common religion, and an increasing conviction that war 
is not the interest of the human race — all concur, to increase the 
interest created by this new accession to the list of nations. 

We have heard it said, sir, that the topic of South American In- 
dependence is worn out, and threadbare. Such it may be, sir, to 
those who have contemplated it merely as an article of news, like the 
fluctuation of the markets, or the rise and fall of stocks. Such it 
may be, to those minds who can see no consequences following from 
these great events. But whoever has either understood their present 
importance, or can at all estimate their future influence — whoever 
has reflected on the new relations they introduce w ith other states — 
whoever, among ourselves especially, has meditated on the new re- 
lations which we now bear to them, and the striking attitude in which 
we ourselves are now placed, as the oldest of the American nations, 
will feel that the topic can never be without interest; and will be sen- 
sible that, whether we are wise enough to perceive it or not, the es- 
tablishment of South American independence will affect all nations, 
and ourselves perhaps more than any other, through all coming time. 
But, sir, although the independence of these new States sterns ef- 
fectually accomplished, yet a lingering and hopeless war is kept up 
against them by Spain. This is greatly to be regretted by all nations. 
To Spain it is, as every reasonable man sees, useless, and without 
hope. To the new States themselves it is burdensome and afflictive. 
To the commerce of neutral nations it is annoying and vexatious. — 
There seems to be something of the pertinacy of the Spanish char- 
acter in holding on in such a desperate course. It reminds us of 
the seventy years during which Spain resisted the Independence of 
Holland. I think, however, that there is some reason to believe that 
the war approaches to its end. I believe that the measures adopted 
by our own government have had an effect in tending to produce that 
result. I understand, at least, that the question of recognition has 



334> 

been taken into consideration by the Spanish government; and it 
may be hoped that a war, which Spain tinds to be so expensive, which 
the whole world tells her is so hopeless, and which, if continued, now 
threatens her with new dangers, she may, ere long, have the prudence 
to terminate. 

Our own course during this contest between Spain and her colonies 
is well known. Though entirely and strictly neutral, we were in 
favor of early recognition. Our opinions were known to the Allied 
Sovereigns when in Congress at Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818, at which 
time the affairs of Spain and her colonies were under consideration; 
and, probably, the knowledge of those sentiments, together with the 
policy adopted by England, prevented any interference by other pow- 
ers at that time. Yet we have treated Spain with scrupulous deli- 
cacy. We acted on the case as one of civil war. We treated with 
the new governments as governments de facto. Not questioning 
the right of Spain to coerce them back to their old obedience, if she 
had the power, we yet held it to be our right to deal with them as 
with existing governments in fact, when the moment arrived at which 
it became apparent and manifest that the dominion of Spain over 
these, her ancient colonies, was at an end. Our right, our interest, 
and our duty, all concurred at that moment to recommend recogni- 
tion — and we did recognise. 

Now, sir, the history of this proposed Congress goes back to an 
earlier date than that of our recognition. It commenced in 1821; 
and one of the treaties now before us, proposing such a meeting, 
that between Colombia and Chili, was concluded in July, 1822, a few 
months only after we had acknowledged the independence of the 
new States. The idea originated, doubtless, in the wish to strength- 
en the union among the new governments, and to promote the com- 
mon cause of all, the effectual resistance to Spanish authority. As 
independence was at that time their leading object, it is natural to 
suppose that they contemplated this mode of mutual intercourse and 
mutual arrangement, as favorable to the necessary concentration of 
purpose, and of action, for the attainment of that object. But this 
purpose of the Congress, or this leading idea, in which it may be 
supposed to have originated, has led, as it seems to me, to great 
misapprehensions as to its true character, and great mistakes in re- 
gard to the danger to be apprehended from our sending ministers to 
the meeting. This meeting, sir, is a Congress — not a Congress as 
the word is known to our Constitution and laws, for we use it in a 
peculiar sense; but as it is known to the law of nations. A Con- 
gress, by the law of nations, is but an appointed meeting for the set- 
tlement of affairs between different nations, in which the represen- 
tatives or agents of each treat and negotiate as they are instructed 
bv their own government. In other words, this Congress is a diplo- 
niatic meeting. We are asked to join no government — no legisla- 
ture — no league — acting by votes. It is a Congress, such as those 
of WestphaHa, of Nimeguen, of Ryswyck, or of Utrecht; or such 
as those which have been holden in Europe, in our own time. No 
nation is a party to any thing done in such assemblies, to which it 
does not expressly make itself a party. No one's rights are put at 
the disposition of any of the rest, or of all the rest. What ministers 



335 

dgree to, being afterwards duly ratified at home, binds their govern- 
ment; and nothing else binds the government. Whatsoever is done, 
to which they do not assent, neither binds the ministers nor their 
government, any more than if they had not been present. 

1 hese truths, sir, seem too plain, and too commonplace to be 
stated. I find my apology only in those misapprehensions of the 
character of the meeting to which I have referred both now and 
formerly. It has been said that commercial treaties are not nego- 
tiated at such meetings. Far otherwise is the fact. Among the 
earliest of important stipulations made in favor of commerce and 
navigation, were those at Westphalia. And what we call the treaty 
of Utrecht, was a bundle of treaties, negotiated at that Congress; 
some of peace, some of boundary, and others of commerce. Again, 
it has been said, in order to prove that this meeting is a sort of con- 
federacy, that such assemblies are out of the way of ordinary nego- 
tiation, and are always founded on, and provided for, by previous 
treaties. Pray, sir, what treaty preceded the Congress at Utrecht? 
and the meeting of our Plenipotentiaries with those of England at 
Ghent, what was that but a Congress.^ and what treaty preceded it? 
It is said, again, that there is no sovereign to whom our ministers 
can be accredited. Let me ask whether, in the case last cited, our 
ministers exhibited their credentials to the Mayor of Ghent? Sir, 
the practice of nations in these matters, is well known, and is free 
of difficulty. If the government be not present, agents or Pleni- 
potentiaries interchange their credentials. And when it is said tliat 
our ministers at Panama will be, not ministers, but deputies, mem- 
bers of a deliberative body, not protected in their public character by 
the public law; when all this is said, propositions are advanced, of 
which I see no evidence whatever, and which appear to me to be 
wholly without foundation. 

It is contended that this Congress, by virtue of the treaties which 
the new States have entered into, will possess powers other than 
those of a diplomatic character, as between those new States them- 
selves. If that were so, it would be unimportant to us. The real 
question here is, what will be our relation with those States, by 
sending ministers to this Congress? Their arrangements among 
themselves will not affect us. Even if it were a government, like 
our old confederation, yet, if its members had authority to treat with 
us in behalf of their respective nations on subjects on which we 
have a right to treat, the Congress might still be a very proper oc- 
casion for such negotiations. Do o;entlemen forffet that the French 
Minister was introduced to our old Congress, met it in its sessions, 
carried on oral discussions with it, and treated with it in behalf of 
the French King? All that did not make him a member of it; nor 
connect him at all with the relations which its members bore to each 
other. As he treated on the subject of carrying on the war against 
England, it was, doubtless, hostile towards that power; but this con- 
sequence followed from the object and nature of the stipulations, 
and not from the manner of the intercourse. The Representatives 
of these Soiith American States, it is said, will carry on belligerant 
councils at this Congress. Be it so; we shall not join in such coun- 
cils. At the moment of invitation, our (iovernment informed the 



336 

ministers of those States, that we could not make ourselves a part)^ 
to the war between them and Spain, nor to councils for deliberating 
on the means of its further prosecution. 

If, it is asked, we send ministers to a Congress composed alto- 
gether of belligerants, is it not a breach of neutrality? Certainly 
not: no man can say it is. Suppose, sir, that these ministers from 
the new states, instead of Panama, were to assemble at Bogota, 
where we already have a minister: their councils, at that place, 
might be belligerant, while the war should last with Spain. But 
should we, on that account, recall our minister from Bogota.' 
The whole argument rests on this; that because, at the same time 
and place, the agents of the South American Governments may 
negotiate about their own relations with each other, in regard to 
their common war against Spain, therefore we cannot, at the same 
time and place, negotiate with them, or any of them, upon our own 
neutral and commercial relations. This proposition, sir, cannot be 
maintained; and, therefore, all the inferences from it fail. 

But, sir, I see no proof that, as between themselves, the repre- 
sentatives of the South American States are to possess other than 
diplomatic powers. I refer to the treaties, which are essentially 
alike, and which have been often read. 

With two exceptions, (which I will notice,) the articles of these 
treaties, describing the powers of the Congress, are substantially 
like those in the treaty of Paris, in 1814, providing for the Congress 
at Vienna. It was there stipulated that all the powers should send 
plenipotentiaries to Vienna, to regulate, in general Congress, the 
arrangements to complete the provisions of the present treaty. 
Now, it might have been here asked, how reoidatc? How regulate 
in general Congress? — regulate by votes? Sir, nobody asked such 
questions: simply because it was to be a Congress of plenipotentia- 
ries. The two exceptions which I have mentioned, are, that this 
Congress is to act as a council and to interpret treaties; hut there 
is nothing in either of these to be done which may not be done di- 
plomatically. What is more common than diplomatic intercourse, 
to explain and to interpret treaties? Or what more frequent than 
that nations, having a common object, interchange mutual counsels 
and advice, through the medium of their respective ministers? To 
bring this matter, sir, to the test, let me ask, when these ministers 
assemble at Panama, can they do anything but according to their 
instructions? Have they any organization, any power of action, 
or any rule of action connnon to them all? No more, sir, than the 
respective ministers at the Congress of Vienna. Everything is 
settled by the use of the word Plenipotentiary. That proves the 
mcetinjTto be diplomatic, and nothing else. Who ever heard of a 
plenipotentiary member of the liCgislature? — a plenipotentiary bur- 
gess of a city.' — or a plenipotentiary knight of the shire? 

We may dismiss all fears, sir, arising from the nature of this meet- 
ing. Our agents will go there, if they go at all, in the character of 
ministers, protected by the public law, negotiating only for ourselves, 
and n: f called on to violate any neutral duty of their own govern- 
ment. If it be so that this meeting lias ithcT powers, in consequence 
of other arrangements between other States, of which I see no proof, 



337 

still, we are not party to these arrangements, nor can be in any way 
affected by them. As far as this government is concerned, nothing 
can be done hut bv negotiation, as in other cases. 

It has been atlir'med, that this measure, and the sentiments expres- 
sed bv the Executive relative to its objects, are an acknowledged 
departure from the neutral policy of the United States. Sir, I deny 
there is an acknowledged departure, or any departure at all, from 
the neutral policy of the country. What do we mean by our neu- 
tral policy.? Not, I suppose, a blind and stupid indifference to what- 
ever is passing around us; not a total disregard to approaching 
events, or approaching evils, till they meet us full in the tace. Nor 
do we mean, by our neutral policy, that we intend never to assert 
our rights by force. No, sir. We mean by our policy of neutral- 
ity, that the great objects of national pursuit w ith us are connected 
with peace. We covet no provinces; we desire no conquests; we 
entertain no ambitious projects of aggrandizement by war. This 
is our policy. But it does not follow, from this, that we rely less 
than other nations, on our own power to vindicate our own rights. 
We know that the last logic of kings is also our last logic; that our 
own interests must be defended and maintained by our own arm; 
and that peace or war may not always be of our own choosing. Our 
neutral policy, therefore, not only justifies but requires, our anxious 
attention to the political events which take place in the world, a 
skiltiil perception of their relation to our own concerns, and an early 
anticipation of their consequences, and firm and timely assertion of 
what we hold to be our own rights, and our own interests. Our 
neutrality is not a predetermined abstinence, either from remonstran- 
ces, or from force. Our neutral policy is a policy that protects neu- 
trality, that defends neutrality, that takes up arms, if need be, for 
neutrality. When it is said, therefore, that this measure departs 
from our neutral policy, either that policy, or the measure itself, is 
misunderstood. It implies either that the object or the tendency of 
the measure is to involve us in the war of other States, which I think 
cannot be shown, or that the assertion of our own sentiments, on 
points affecting deeply our own interests, may place us in a hostile 
attitude with other States, and that, therefore, we depart from neu- 
trality; whereas the truth is, that the decisive assertion, and the firm 
support of these sentihients, may be most essential to the mainten- 
ance of neutrality. 

An honorable member from Pennsylvania thinks this Congress 
will bring a dark day over the United States. Doubtless, sir, it is 
an interesting moment in our history; but I see no great proofs of 
thick coming darkness. But the object of the remark seemed to be 
to show that the President himself saw difficulties on all sides, and, 
making a choice of evils, preferred rather to send ministers to this. 
Congress, than to run the risk of exciting the hostility of the States 
by refusing to send. In other words, the gentleman wished to prove 
that the President intended an alliance; although such intention is 
expressly disclaimed. 

Much commentary has been bestowed on the letters of invitation 
from the ministers. I shall not go through with verbal criticisms 
on these letters. Their general import is plain enough. I shall not 
43 EE 



- 338 

gather together small and minute quotations, taking a sentence here, 
a word there, and a syllable in a third place, dovetailing them into 
the course of remark, till the printed discourse bristles with inver- 
ted commas, in every line, like a harvest-field. I look to the gen- 
eral tenor of the invitations, and I find that we are asked to take 
part only in such things as concern ourselves. I look still more 
carefully to the answers, and I see every proper caution, and proper 
guard. I look to the message, and I see that nothing is there 
contemplated, likely to involve us in other men's quarrels, or that 
may justly give offence to any foreign State. With this, I am 
satisfied. 

I must now ask the indulgence of the Committee to an important 
point in the discussion, I mean the Declaration of the President in 
1823. Not only as a member of the House, but as a citizen of the 
country, I have an anxious desire that this part of our public his- 
tory should stand in its proper light. Sir, in my judgment the coun- 
try has a very high honor, connected with that occurrence, which 
we may maintain, or which we may sacrifice. I look upon it as 
a part of its treasures of reputation; and, for one, I intend to 
guard it. 

Sir, let us recur to the important political events which led to that 
declaration, or accompanied it. In the fall of 1822, the allied sov- 
ereigns held their Congress at Verona. The great subject of con- 
sideration was the condition of Spain, that country then being under 
the government of the Cortes. The question was, whether Fer- 
dinand should be reinstated in all his authority, by the intervention 
of foreign force. Russia, Prussia, France, and Austria, were in- 
clined to that measure; England dissented and protested; but the 
course was agreed on, and France, with the consent of these other 
continental powers, took the conduct of the operation into her own 
hands. In the spring of 1823, a French army was sent into Spain. 
Its success was complete. The popular government was over- 
thrown, and Ferdinand reestablished in all his power. This inva- 
sion, sir, was determined on, and undertaken, precisely on the doc- 
trines which the allied monarchs had proclaimed the year before, at 
Laybach; and that is, that they had a right to interfere in the con- 
cerns of another State, and reform its government, in order to pre- 
vent the effects of its bad example; this bad example, be it remem- 
bered, always being the example of free government. Now, sir, 
acting on this principle of supposed dangerous example, and having 
put down the example of the Cortes in Spain, it was natural to in- 
quire with what eyes they would look on the colonies of Spain, that 
were following still worse examples. Would King Ferdinand and 
his allies be content with what had been done in Spain itself, or 
would he solicit their aid, and was it likely they would grant it, to 
subdue his rebellious American Provinces. 

Sir, it was in this posture of affairs, on an occasion which has al- 
ready been alluded to, that I ventured to say, early in the session 
of December, 1823, that these allied monarchs might possibly turn 
their attention to America; that America came within their avowed 
doctrine, and that her examples might very possibly attract tlieir no- 
tice. The doctrines of Laybach were not limited to any continent; 



339 

Spain had colonies in America, and having reformed Spain herseJf 
to the true standard, it was not impossible that they might see fit to 
complete the work by .reconciling, in their way, the colonies to the 
mother country. Now, sir, it did so happen, that as soon as the 
Spanish King was completely reestablished, he did invite the co- 
operation of his allies, in regard to South America. In the same 
month of December, of 1823, a formal 'invitation was addressed by 
Spain to the courts of St. Petersburg, Vienna, Berlin, and Paris, 
proposing to establish a conference at Paris, in order that the Pleni- 
potentiaries, there assembled, might aid Spain in adjusting the af- 
fairs of her revolted provinces. These affairs were proposed to be 
adjusted in such manner as should retain the sovereignty of Spain 
over them; and though the cooperation of the allies, by force of 
arms, was not directly solicited — such was evidently the object aim- 
ed at. 

The King of Spain, in making this request to the members of the 
Holy Alliance, argued, as it had been seen he might argue. He 
quoted their own doctrines of Laybach; he pointed out the pernicious 
example of America; and he reminded them that their success, in 
Spain itself, had paved the way for successful operations against the 
spirit of liberty on this side the Atlantic. 

The proposed meeting, however, did not take place. England 
had already taken a decided course; for, as early as October, Mr. 
Canning, in a conference with the French minister in London, in- 
formed him distinctly and expressly, that England would consider 
any foreign interference, by force or by menace, in the dispute be- 
tween Spain and the colonies, as a motive for recognising the latter, 
without delay. 

It is probable this determination of the English government was 
known here, at the commencement of the session of Congress; and 
it was under these circumstances, it was in this crisis, that Mr. 
Monroe's declaration was made. It was not then ascertained wheth- 
er a meeting of the Allies would, or would not, take place, to con- 
cert with Spain the means of reestablishing her power; but it was 
plain enough they would be pressed by Spain to aid her operations; 
and it was plain enough also, that they had no particular liking to 
what was taking place on this side the Atlantic, nor any great disin- 
clination to interfere. This was the posture of affairs; and, sir, I 
concur entirely in the sentiment expressed in the resolution, of a 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. Markley,) that this declaration 
of Mr. Monroe was wise, seasonable, and patriotic. 

It has been said, in the course of this debate, to have been a 
loose and vague declaration. It was, I believe, sufficiently studied. 
I have understood, from good authority, that it was considered, 
weighed, and distinctly and decidedly approved by every one of the 
President's advisers, at that time. Our government could not adopt, 
on that occasion, precisely the course which England had taken 
England threatened the immediate recognition of the Provinces, if 
the Allies should take part with Spain against them. — We had al- 
ready recognised them. It remained, therefore, only for our gov- 
ernment to say how we should consider a combination of the Allied 
Powers, to effect objects in America, as affecting ourselves; and the 



340 

message was intended to say, what it does say, that we shonld regard 
such combination as dangerous to us. Sir, I agree with those who 
maintain the proposition, and I contend against those who deny it, 
that the message did mean something; that it meant much; and I 
maintain, against both, that the declaration effected much good, an- 
swered the end designed by it, did great honor to the foresight, and 
the spirit of tlie government, and that it cannot now be taken back, 
retracted or annulled, without disgrace. It met, sir, with the entire 
concurrence, and the hearty approbation of the country. The tone 
which it uttered found a corresponding response in the breasts of the 
free people of the United States. That people saw, and they re- 
joiced to see, that, on a fit occasion, our weight had been thrown in- 
to the right scale, and that, without departing from our duty, we had 
done something useful, and something effectual, for the 'cause of civil 
liberty. One general glow of exultation — one universal feeling of 
the gratified love of liberty — one conscious and proud perception of 
the consideration which the country possessed, and of the respect 
and honor which belonged to it — pervaded all bosoms. Possibly the 
public enthusiasm went too far; it certainly did go far. But, sir, the 
sentiment which this declaration inspired was not confined to our- 
selves. Its force was felt everywhere, by all those who could un- 
derstand its object, and foresee its effect. In that very House of 
Connnons, of which the gentleman from South Carolina has spoken 
with such commendation, how was it there received? Not only, sir, 
with approbation, but, I may say, with no little enthusiasm. While 
the leading minister expressed his entire concurrence in the senti- 
ments and opinions of the American President, his distinguished 
com[)etitor in tl^t popular body, less restrained by official decorum, 
and more at liberty to give utterance to all the feeling of the occa- 
sion, declared that no event had ever created greater joy, exultation, 
and gratitude, among all the free men in Europe; that he felt pride 
in being connected by blood and language, with the people of the 
United States; that the policy disclosed by the message, became a 
great, a free, and an independent nation; and that he hoped his own 
country would be prevented by no mean pride, or paltry jealousy, 
from following so noble and glorious an example. 

It is doubtless true, as I took occasion to observe the other day, 
that this declaration must be considered as founded on our rights, 
and to spring mainly from a regard to their preservation. It did not 
commit us at all events to take up arms, on any indication of hostile 
feeling by the powers of Europe towards South America. If, for 
example, all the States of Europe had refused to trade with South 
America, until her States should return to their former allegiance, 
that would have furnished no cause of interference to us. Or if an 
armament had been turnished by the allies to act against provinces 
the most remote from us, as Chili or Buenos Ayres, the distance of 
the sceije of action diminishing our apprehension of danger, and 
diminishing also our means of effectual interposition, might still have 
left us to content ourselves with remonstrance. But a very differ- 
ent case would have arisen, if an army, etpiipped and maintained by 
these powers, Wad been landed on the shores of the Gulf of Mex- 
ico, and conanenced the war in our own immediate neighbourhood. 



341 

Such an event might justly be regarded as dangerous to ourselves, 
and, on that ground, to have called for decided and immediate inter- 
ference by us. The sentiments and the policy announced by the 
declaration, thus understood, were, therefore, in strict conformity to 
our duties and our interest. 

Sir, I look on the message of December, 1823, as forming a bright 
page in cur history. I will neither help to erase it, or tear it out; 
nor shall it be, by any act of mine, blurred or blotted. It did honor 
to the sagacity of the government, and I will not diminish that 
honor. It elevated the hopes, and gratified the patriotism, of the 
people. Over those hopes I will not bring a mildew; nor will I put 
that gratified patriotism to shame. 

But how should it happen, sir, that there should now be such a 
new-born fear, on the subject of this declaration? The crisis is 
over; the danger is past. At the time it was made, there was real 
ground for apprehension: now there is none. It was then possi- 
ble, perhaps not improbable, that the allied powers might interfere 
with America. There is now no ground for any such fear. Most 
of the gentlemen who have now spoken on the subject, were at that 
time here. They all heard the declaration. Not one of them com- 
plained. And yet, now, when all danger is over, we are vehement- 
ly warned against the sentiments of the declaration. 

To avoid this apparent inconsistency, it is, however, contended, 
that new force has been recently given to this declaration. But of 
this, I see no evidence whatever. I see nothing in any instructions 
or cor.miunications from our government changing the character of 
that declaration in any degree. There is, as I have before said, in 
one of Mr. Poinsett's letters, an inaccuracy of expression. If he 
has recited correctly his conversation with the Mexican minister, 
he did go too far: farther than any instruction warranted. But, 
taking his whole correspondence together, it is quite manifest that 
he has deceived nobody, nor has he committed the country. On the 
subject of a pledge, he put the Mexican minister entirely right. 
He stated to him, distinctly, that this government had given no 
pledge which others could call upon it to redeem. What could be 
more explicit? Again, sir: it is plain that Mexico thought us un- 
der no greater pledge than England: for the letters to the English 
and American ministers, requesting interference, were in precisely 
the same words. When this passage in Mr. Poinsett's letter was 
first noticed, we were assured there was and must be some other 
authority for it. It was confidently said he had instructions, au- 
thorising it, in his pocket. It turns out otherwise. As little ground 
is there to complain of anything in the Secretary's letter to Mr. 
Poinsett. It seems to me to be precisely what it should be. It 
does not, as has been alleged, propose any cooperation between the 
government of Mexico and our own. Nothing like it. It instructs 
our ministers to bring to the notice of the Mexican government the 
line ol policy which we have marked out for ourselves — acting on 
our own grounds, and for our own interests; and to suggest to that 
government, acting on its own ground, and for its own interests, the 
propriety of following a similar course. Here, sir, is no alliance, 
nor even any. cooperation. 



342 

So, again, as to the correspondence which refers to t4ie appear- 
ance of the French fleet in the West India Seas. Be it remember- 
ed, that our government was contending, in the course of this cor- 
respondence with Mexico, for an equality in matters of commerce. 
It insisted on being placed, in this respect, on the same footing as 
the other South American States. To enforce this claim, our known 
friendly sentiments towards 3Iexico, as well as to the rest of the 
new States, were suggested — and properly suggested. Mexico 
was reminded of the timely declaration which had been made of 
these sentiments. — She was reminded that she herself had been 
well inclined to claim the benefit resulting from that declaration, 
when a French fleet appeared in the neighbouring seas; and she 
was referred to the course adopted by our government on that oc- 
casion, with an intimation that she might learn from it how the same 
government would have acted if other possible contingencies had 
happened. What is there, in all this, of any renewed pledge, or 
what is there of anything beyond the true line of our policy.'^ Do 
gentlemen mean to say that the communication made to France, on 
this occasion, was improper.^ Do they mean to repel and repudiate 
that declaration.^ That declaration was, that we could not see Cuba 
transferred from Spain to another European power. If the House 
mean to contradict that — be it so. If it do not, then, as the gov- 
ernment had acted properly in this case, it did furnish ground to 
believe it would act properly, also, in other cases, when they arose. 
And the reference to this incident or occurrence by the Secretary, 
was pertinent to the argument which he was pressing on the Mex- 
ican government. 

I have but a word to say on the subject of the declaration against 
European colonization in America. The late President seems to 
have thought the occasion used by him for that purpose to be a pro- 
per one for the open avowal of a principle which had already been 
acted on. Great and practical inconveniences, it was feared, might 
be apprehended, from the establishment of new colonies in America, 
having a European origin and a European connexion. Attempts 
of that kind, it was obvious, might possibly be made, amidst the 
changes that were taking place, in Mexico, as well as in the more 
Southern States. Mexico bounds us, on a vast length of line, from 
the Gulf of Mexico to the PaciHc Ocean. There are many reasons 
why it should not be desired by us, that an establishment, under 
the protection of a dift'erent power, should occupy any portion of 
that space. We have a general interest, that through all the vast 
territories rescued from the dominion of Spain, our commerce might 
find its vvay, protected by treaties with governments existing on the 
spot. These views, and others of a similar character, rendered it 
highly desirable to us, that these new States should settle it, as a 
part of their policy, not to allow colonization within their respective 
territories. True, indeed, we did not need their aid to assist us in 
maintaining such a course for ourselves; but we had an interest in 
their assertion and support of the principle as applicable to their 
own territories. 

I now proceed, Mr. Chairman, to a few remarks on the subject 
of Cuba, the most important point of our foreign relations. It is 



343 

the hinge on which interesting events may possibly turn. I pray 
gentlemen to review their opinions on this subject before they fully 
commit themselves. I understood the honorable member from 
South Carolina to say, that if Spain chose to transfer this Island to 
any power in Europe, she had a right to do so, and we could not 
interfere to prevent it. Sir, this is a delicate subject. I hardly feel 
competent to treat it as it deserves; and I am not quite willing to 
state here all that I think about it. I must, however, dissent from 
the opinion of the gentleman from South Carolina. The right of 
nations, on subjects of this kind, are necessarily very much modified 
by circumstances. Because England or France could not rightfully 
complain of the transfer of Florida to us, it by no means follows, 
as the gentleman supposes, that we could not complain of the ces- 
sion of Cuba to one of them. The plain difference is, that the 
transfer of Florida to us was not dangerous to the safety of either 
of those nations, nor fatal to any of their great and essential inter- 
ests. Proximity of position, neighbourhood, whatever augments 
the power of injuring and annoying, very properly belong to the 
consideration of all cases of this kind. The greater or less facility 
of access itself is of consideration in such questions, because it 
brings, or may bring, weighty consequences with it. It justifies, 
for these reasons, and on these grounds, what otherwise might never 
be thought of. By negotiation with a foreign power, Mr. Jefferson 
obtained a province. Without any alteration of our Constitution, 
we have made it part of the United States, and its Senators and 
Representatives, now coming from several States, are here among 
us. Now, sir, if, instead of being Louisiana, this had been one 
of the provinces of Spain proper, or one of her South American 
colonies, he must have been a madman, that should have proposed 
such an acquisition. A high conviction of its convenience, arising 
from proximity, and from close natural connexion, alone reconciled 
the country to the measure. Considerations of the same sort have 
weight in other cases. 

An honorable member from Kentucky, (Mr, Wickliffe,) argues, 
that although we might rightfully prevent another power from taking 
Cuba from Spain, by force, yet if Spain should choose to make the 
voluntiiry transfer, we should have no right whatever to interfere. 
Sir, this is a distinction without a difference. If we are likely to 
have contention about Cuba, let us first well consider what our rigiits 
are, and not commit ourselves. And, sir, if we have any right to 
interfere at all, it applies as well to the case of a peaceable, as to 
that of a forcible, transfer. If natious be at war, we are not judges 
of the question of right, in that war; we must acknowledge, in both 
parties, the mutual right of attack, aiul the mutual right of conquest. 
It is not for us to set hounds to tiieir belligerant operations, so long 
as they do not afl'ect ourselves. Our right to interfere, sir, in any 
such case, is but the exercise of the right of reasonable and neces- 
sary self-defence. It is a high and delicate exercise of that right; 
one not to be made but on grounds of strong and manifest reason, 
justice, and necessity. The real question is, whether the possession 
of Cuba by a great maritime power of Europe, would seriously 
endanger our own immediate security, or our essential interests 



344 

I put the question, sir, in the language of some of the best consid- 
ered state papers of modern times. The general rule of national 
law is, unquestionably, against interference, in the transactions of 
other States. There are, however, acknowledged exceptions, grow- 
inff out of circumstances, and founded in those circumstances. 
These exceptions, it has been properly said, cannot, without danger, 
be reduced to previous rule, and incorporated into the ordinary diplo 
macy of nations. Nevertheless, they do exist, and must be judged 
of, when they arise, with a just regard to our own essential interests, 
but in a spirit of strict justice and delicacy also towards foreign States, 
The ground of these exceptions is, as I have already stated, self- 
preservation. It is not a slight mjury to our interest j it is not even 
a great inconvenience, that makes out a case. There must be 
danger to our security, or danger, manifest and imminent danger, 
to our essential rights, and our essential interests. Now, sir, let us 
look at Cuba. I need hardly refer to its present amount of com- 
mercial connexion with the United States. Our statistical tables, 
I presume, would show us, that our commerce with the Havanna 
alone is more in amount than our whole commercial intercourse with 
France and all her dependencies. But this is but one part of the 
case, and not the most important. Cuba, as is well said in the re- 
port of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, is placed in the mouth of 
the Mississippi. Its occupation by a strong maritime power would 
be felt, in the first moment of hostility, as far up the Mississippi and 
the Missouri, as our population extends. It is the commanding point 
of the Gulf of Mexico. See, too, how it lies in the very line of 
our coast wise traffic; interposed in the very highway between New 
York and New Orleans. 

Now, sir, who has estimated, or who can estimate, the effect of a 
change', which should place this Island in other hands, subject it to 
new rules of commercial intercourse, or connect it with objects of a 
different and still more dangerous nature? Sir, I repeat that I feel 
no disposition to pursue this topic, on the present occasion. My 
purpose is only to show its importance, and to beg gentlemen not to 
prejudice any rights of the country by assenting to propositions,^ 
which, perhaps, may be necessary to be reviewed. 

And here I differ" again with the gentleman from Kentucky. He 
thinks that, in this, as in other cases, we should wait till the event 
comes, without any previous declaration of our sentiments upon 
subjects important to our own rights or our own interests. Sir, such 
declarations are often the appropriate means of preventing that 
which, if unprevented, it might be difficult to redress. A great object 
in holding diplomatic intercourse, is frankly to expose the views and 
objects of nations, and to prevent, by candid explanation, collision 
and war. In this case, the government has said that we could not 
assent to the transfer of Cuba, to another European State. Can 
we so assent? Do gentlemen think we can? If not, then it was 
entirely proper that this intimation should be frankly and seasonably 
made. Candor required it; and it would have been unpardonable, 
it would have been injustice, as well as folly, to have been silent, 
while we might suppose the transaction to be contemplated, and then 
to complain of it afterwards. If we should have a subsequent right 



345 

to complain, we have a previous right, equally clear, of protesting, 
and it' the evil be one, which, when it comes, would allow us to apply 
a i-emedy, it not only allows us, but it makes it our duty, also, to 
apply prevention. 

But, sir, while some gentlemen have maintained, that on the sub- 
ject of a transfer to any of the European powers, the President has 
said too much, others insist that on that of the Islands being occu- 
pied by Mexico or Colombia, he has said and done too little. I 
presume, sir, for my own part, that the strongest language has been 
directed to the source of greatest danger. Heretofore that danger 
was, doubtless, greatest, which was apprehended from a voluntary 
transfer. The other has been met, as it arose; and, thus far, ade- 
quately and sufficiently met. And here, sir, I cannot but say that 
1 never knew a more extraordinary argument than we have heard 
on the conduct of the Executive on this part of the case. The 
President is charged with inconsistency; and, in order to make this 
out, public despatches are read, which, it is said, militate with one 
another. 

Sir, what are the facts ? This government saw fit to invite the Em- 
peror of Russia to use his endeavours to bring Spain to treat of 
peace with her revolted colonies. Russia was addressed on this 
occasion as the friend of Spain; and, of course, every argument 
which it was thought might have infiuence, or ought to have influ- 
ence, either on Russia or Spain, was suggested in the correspon- 
dence. Among other things, the probable loss to Spain, of Cuba 
and Porto Rico, was urged; and the question was asked, how it was, 
or could be, expected by Spain, that the United States could inter- 
fere, to prevent Mexico and Colombia from taking those Islands 
from her, since she was their enemy, in a public war, and since she 
pertinaciously, and unreasonably, as we think, insists on maintaining 
the war; and since these Islands offered an obvious object of attack.^ 
Was not this, sir, a very proper argument to be urged to Spain? 
A copy of this despatch, it seen)s, was sent to the Senate, in confi- 
dence. It has not been published by the Executive. Now, the 
alleged inconsistency is, that, notwithstanding this letter, the Presi- 
dent lias interfered to dissuade Mexico and Colombia from attack- 
ing Cuba; that, finding or thinking that those States meditated such 
a purpose, this government has urged them to desist from it. Sir, 
was ever anything more unreasonable than this charge? AVas it 
not proper, that, to produce the desired result of peace, our govern- 
ment should address different motives to the different parties in the 
war? Was it not its business to set before each party its dangers 
and its difficulties in pursuing the war? And if, now, by anything 
unexpected, these respective correspondences have become public, 
are these different views, addressed thus to different parties, and 
with different objects, to be relied on as proof of inconsistency ? 
It is the strangest accusation ever heard of. No government, not 
wholly destitute of common sense, would have acted otherwise 
We urged the proper motives to both parties. To Spain we urged 
the probable loss of Cuba; we showed her the dangers of its cap- 
ture by the new States; and we asked her to inform us on what 
ground it was, that we could interfere to prevent such capture, since 
44 



346 

she was at war with these states, and they had an unquestionable 
right to attack her in any of her territories; and especially she was 
asked, how she could expect good offices from us, on this occasion, 
since she fully understood our opinion to be, that she was persisting 
in the war without, or beyond, all reason, and with a sort of des- 
peration. This was the appeal made to the good sense of Spain, 
through Russia. But, soon afterwards, having reason to suspect 
that Colombia and Mexico were actually preparing to attack Cuba, 
and knowing that such an event would most seriously afiect us, our 
government remonstrated against such meditated attack, and to the 
present time it has not been made. In all this, who sees anything 
either improper or inconsistent? For myself, I think the course 
pursued showed a watchful regard to our own interest, and is wholly 
free from any imputation, either of impropriety, or inconsistency. 

There are other subjects, sir, in the President's message, which 
have been discussed in the debate, but on which I shall not detain 
the Committee. 

It cannot be denied, that from the commencement of our govern- 
ment, it has been its object to improve and simplify the principles of 
national intercourse. It may well be thought a fit occasion to urge 
these improved principles, at a moment when so many new States 
are coming into existence, untrammeled, of course, with previous 
and long established connexions or habits. Some hopes of benefit, 
connected with these topics, are suggested in the message. 

The abolition of private war on the ocean, is also among the sub- 
jects of possible consideration. This is not the first time that that 
subject has been mentioned. The late President took occasion to 
enforce the considerations which he thought recommended it. For 
one, I am not prepared to say how far such abolition may be practi- 
cable, or how far it ought to be pursued; but there are views belong- 
ing to the subject, which have not been, in any degree, answered 
or considered, in this discussion. 

Sir, it is not always the party that has the power of employing 
the largest military marine, that enjoys the advantage by authorising 
privateers in war. It is not enough that there are brave and gal- 
lant captors; there must be something to be captured. Suppose, sir, 
a war between ourselves and any one of the new States of South 
America were now existing, who would lose most, by the practice 
of privateering, in such a war? There would be nothing for us to 
attack; while the means of attacking us would flow to our enemies 
from every part of the world. Capital, ships, and men, would be 
abundant in all their ports, and our commerce, spread over every 
sea, would be the destined prey. So, again, if war should unhap- 
pily spring up among those States themselves, might it not be for 
our interest, as being likely to be much connected by intercourse 
with all parties, that our commerce should be free from the visitation 
and search of private armed ships; one of the greatest vexations to 
neutral commerce in time of war? These, sir, are some of the con- 
siderations belonging to this subject. I have mentioned them only 
to show that they well deserve serious attention. 

I have not intended to reply to the many observations which have 
been submitted to us, on the message of the President to this House, 



347 

or that to the Senate. Certainly I am of opinion, that some of those 
observations merited an answer, and they have been answered by 
others. On two points only will I make a remark. It has been 
said, and often repeated, that the President in his message to the 
Senate, has spoken of his own power in regard to missions, in terms 
which the Constitution does not warrant. If gentlemen will turn 
to the message of President Washington, relative to the mission to 
Lisbon, in the 10th vol. of State Papers, they will see almost the 
exact form of expression used in this case. The other point, on 
which I would make a remark, is the allegation, that an unfair use 
has been made in the argument of the message, of General Wash- 
ington's Farewell Address. There would be no end, sir, to com- 
ments and criticisms, of this sort, if they were to be pursued. I only 
observe, that, as it appears to me, the argument of the message, and 
its use of the Farewell Address, are not fairly understood. It is 
not attempted to be inferred from the Farewell Address, that, ac- 
cording to the opinion of Washington, we ought now to haye allian- 
ces with foreign States. No such thing. The Farewell Address 
recommends to us, to abstain as much as possible from all sorts 
of political connexion with the States of Europe, alleging, as the 
reason for this advice, that Europe has a set of primary interests 
of her own, separate from ours, and with which we have no natural 
connexion. Now the message argues, and argues truly, that the 
new South American States, not having a set of interests of their 
own growing out of the balance of power, family alliances, &c., 
separate from ours, in the same manner, and to the same degree, 
as the primary interests of Europe were represented to be-, this 
part of the Farewell Address, aimed at those separate interests 
expressly, did not apply in this case. But does the message in- 
fer from this the propriety of alliances with these new States? Far 
from it. It infers no such thing. On the contrary, it disclaims all 
such purpose. 

There is one other point, sir, on which common justice requires a 
word to be said. It has been alleged that there are material differ- 
ences, as to the papers sent respectively to the two Houses. All 
this, as it seems to me, may be easily and satisfactorily explained. 
In the first place, the instructions of May, 1823, which, it is said, 
were not sent to the Senate, were instructions on which a treaty had 
been already negotiated; which treaty had been subsequently ratifi- 
ed by the Senate. It may be presumed, that when the treaty was 
sent to the Senate, the instructions accompanied it; and if so, they 
were actually already before the Senate; and this accounts for one 
of the alleged differences. In the next place, the letter to Mr. Mid- 
dleton, in Russia, not sent to the House, but now published by the 
Senate, is such a paper as possibly the President might not think 
proper to make public. There is evident reason for such an infer- 
ence. And, lastly, the correspondence of Mr. Brown, sent here, 
but not to the Senate, appears, from its date, to have been received 
after the communication to the Senate. Probably when sent to us, 
it was also sent, by another message, to that body. 

These observations, sir, are tedious and uninteresting. I am glad 
to be through with them. And here I might terminate my remarks, 



348 

and relieve the patience, now long and heavily taxed, of the Com- 
mittee. But there is one part of the discussion, on which I must 
ask to be indulged with a few observations. 

Pains, sir, have been taken by the honorable member from Vir- 
ginia, to prove that the measure now in contemplation, and, indeed, 
the whole policy of the government respecting South America, is 
the unhappy result of the influence of a gentleman formerly filling 
the chair of this House. To make out this, he has referred to cer- 
tain speeches of that gentleman delivered here. He charges liim 
with having become himself affected at an early day with what he is 
pleased to call the South American fever; and with having infused 
its baneful influence into the whole councils of the country. 

If, sir, it be true, that that gentleman, prompted by an ardent love 
of civil liberty, felt earlier than others, a proper sympathy for the 
struggling colonies of South America; or that, acting on the maxim, 
that revolutions do not go backward, he had the sagacity to foresee, 
earlier than others, the successful termination of those struggles; if, 
thus feeling, and thus perceiving, it fell to him to lead the willing or 
unwilling councils of his country, in her manifestations of kindness 
to the new governments, and in her seasonable recognition of their 
independence; if it be this which the honorable member imputes to 
him; if it be by this course of public conduct that he has identified 
his name with the cause of South American liberty, he ought to be 
esteemed one of the most fortunate men of the age. If all this be, 
as is now represented, he has acquired fame enough. It is enough 
for any man, thus to have connected himself with the greatest events 
of the age in which he lives, and to have been foremost in measures 
which reflect high honor on his country, in the judgment of man- 
kind. Sir, it is always with great reluctance that I am drawn to 
speak, in my place here, of individuals; but I could not forbear what 
I have now said, when I hear, in the House of Representatives, and 
in this land of free spirits, that it is made matter of imputation and 
of reproach, to have been first to reach forth the hand of welcome 
and of succour to new-born nations, struggling to obtain, and to en- 
joy, the blessings of liberty. 

We are told that the country is deluded and deceived by cabalis- 
tic words. Cabalistic words! If we express an emotion of pleas- 
ure at the results of this great action of the spirit of political liberty; 
if we rejoice at the birth of new Republican nations, and express 
our joy by the common terms of regard and sympathy; if we feel and 
signify high gratification that, throughout this whole continent, men 
are now likely to be blessed by free and popular institutions; and if, 
in the uttering of these sentiments, we happen to speak of sister 
Republics; of the great American family of nations; or of the polit- 
ical sy.stem and forms of government of this liemisphere, then in- 
deed, it seems, we deal in senseless jargon, or impose on the judg- 
ment and feeling of the community by cabalistic words! Sir, what 
is meant by this? Is it intended that the Pe<)])le of the United States 
ought to be totally indiflerent to the fortunes of these new neigh- 
bours.'' Is no change, in the lights in which we are to view them, 
to be wrought, by their having thrown off* foreign dominion, establish- 



349 

ed independence, and instituted, on our very borders, republican 
governments, essentially after our own example ? 

Sir, I do not wish to overrate, I do not overrate, the progress of 
these new States in the great work of establishing a well-secured 
popular liberty. I know that to be a great attainment, and I know 
they are but pupils in the school. But, thank God, they are in the 
school. They are called to meet difhculties, such as neither we 
nor our fathers encountered. For these, we ought to make large 
allowances. What have we ever known like the colonial vassalage 
of these States? When did we or our ancestors, feel, like them, 
the weight of a political despotism that presses men to the earth, or 
of that religious intolerance which would shut up heaven to all but 
the bigoted.'' Sir, we sprung from another stock. We belong to 
another race. We have known nothing — we have felt nothing of 
the political despotism of Spain, nor of the heat of her fires of in- 
tolerance. No rational man expects that the South can run the 
same rapid career as the North; or that an insurgent province of 
Spain is in the same condition as the English colonies, when they 
first asserted their independence. There is, doubtless, much more 
to be done, in the first than in the last case. But on that account 
the honor of the attempt is not less; and if all difficulties shall be 
in time surmounted, it will be greater. The work may be more 
arduous — it is not less noble, because there may be more of igno- 
rance to enlighten; more of bigotry to subdue; more of prejudice 
to eradicate. If it be a weakness to feel a strong interest in the 
success of these great revolutions, I confess myself guilty of that 
weakness. If it be weak to feel that I am an American, to think 
that recent events have not only opened new modes of intercourse, 
but have created also new grounds of regard and sympathy between 
ourselves and our neighbours; if it be weak to feel that the South, 
in her present state, is somewhat more emphatically a part of Amer- 
ica, than when she lay obscure, oppressed, and unknown, under the 
grinding bondage of a foreign power; if it be weak to rejoice, when, 
even in any corner of the earth, human beings are able to get up 
from beneath oppression, to erect themselves, and to enjoy the pro- 
per happiness of their intelligent nature; if this be weak, it is a 
weakness from which I claim no exemption. 

A day of solemn retribution now visits the once proud monarchy 
of Spain. The prediction is fulfilled. The spirit of Montezuma 
and of the Incas might now well say, 

" Art thou, too, fallen, Iberia 1 Do we see 

The robber and tiie murderer weak as we ■? 
Tliou ! tliat lias wasted eartli and dared despise 
Alike tiie wrath and mercy of the skies. 
Thy pomp is in the grave ; thy glory laid 
Low in the pit thine avarice has made." 

Mr. Chairman: I will detain you only with one more reflection 
on this subject. We cannot be so blind — we cannot so shut up our 
senses, and smother our faculties, as not to see, that in the progress 
and the estai)Iishment of South American liberty, our own example 
has been among the most .stimulating causes. In their emergen- 

FF . 



350 

cies, they have looked to our experience; in their political institu- 
tions, they have followed our models; in their deliberations, they 
have invoked the presiding spirit of our own liberty. They have 
looked steadily, in every adversity, to the great northern light. 
In the hour of bloody conflict, they have remembered the fields 
which have been consecrated by the blood of our own fathers; and 
when they have fallen, they have wished only to be remembered, 
with them, as men who had acted their parts bravely, for the cause 
of liberty in the Western World. 

Sir, I have done. If it be weakness to feel the sympathy of 
one's nature excited for such men, in such a cause, I am guilty of 
that weakness. If it be prudence to meet their proffered civility, 
not with reciprocal kindness, but with coldness or with insult, I 
choose still to follow where natural impulse leads, and to give up 
that false and mistaken prudence, for the voluntary sentiments of 
my heart. 



' SPEECH 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE BILL FOR THE 
RELIEF OF THE SURVIVING OFFICERS OF THE REVOLUTION. 
APRIL 25, 1828. 

It has not been my purpose to take any part in the discussion of 
this bill. My opinions in regard to its general object, I hope are 
well known; and I had intended to content myself with a steady and 
persevering vote in its favor. But, when the moment of final decis- 
ion has come, and the division is so likely to be nearly equal, I feel 
it to be a duty to put not only my own vote, but my own earnest 
wishes, also, and my fervent entreaties to others, into the doubtful 
scale. 

It must be admitted, sir, that the persons for whose benefit this 
bill is designed, are, in some respects, peculiarly unfortunate. They 
are compelled to meet not only objections to the principle, but, which- 
ever way they turn themselves, embarrassing objections also to 
details. One friend hesitates at this provision, and another at that; 
while those who are not friends at all, of course oppose everything, 
and propose nothing. When it was contemplated, heretofore, to 
give the petitioners an outright sum, in satisfaction of their claim, 
then the argument was, among other things, that the treasury could 
not bear so heavy a draught on its means, at the present moment. 

The plan is accordingly changed: an annuity is proposed; and then 
the objection changes also; and it is now said, that this is but grant- 
ing pensions, and that the pension system has already been carried 
too far. I confess, sir, I felt wounded — deeply hurt — at the obser- 
vations of the gentleman from Georgia. " So then," said he, " these 
modest and high-minded gentlemen take a pension at last!" How is 
it possible, that a gentleman of his generosity of character, and 
general kindness of feehng, can indulge in such a tone of triumphant 
irony towards a few old, gray headed, poor, and broken warriors of 
the revolution! There is, I know, something repulsive and oppro- 
brious in the name of pension. But, God forbid that I should taunt 
them with it! With grief, heart-full grief, do I behold the necessity 
which leads these veterans to accept the bounty of their country, ia 
a manner not the most agreeable to their feelings. Worn out and 
decrepit, represented before us by those, their former brothers in 
arms, who totter along our lobbies, or stand leaning on their crutches. 
I, for one, would most gladly support such a measure as should con- 



suit at once their services, their years, their necessities, and the 
deUcacy of tlieir sentiments. I would gladly give, with promptitude 
and grace, with gratitude and delicacy, that which merit has earned, 
and necessity demands. 

Sir, what are the objections urged against this bill? Let us look 
at them, and see if they be real; let us weigh them, to know if they 
be solid. For, sir, we are not acting on a slight matter. Nor is 
what we do likely to pass unobserved now, or to be forgotten here- 
after. I regard the occasion as one full of interest and full of 
responsibility. Those individuals, the little remnant of a gallant 
band, whose days of youth and manhood were spent for their coun- 
try in the toils and dangers of the field, are now before us, poor 
and old, — intimating their wants with reluctant delicacy, and asking 
succour from their country with decorous solicitude. How we 
shall treat them, it behooves us well to consider, not only for their 
sake, but for our own sake, also, and for the sake of the honor of 
the country. Whatever we do, will not be done in a corner. Our 
constituents will see it; the people will see it; the world will see it. 

Let us candidly examine, then, the objections which have been 
raised to this bill; with a disposition to yield to them, if from neces- 
sity we must; but, to overcome them, if in fairness we can. 

In the first place, it is said, that we ought not to pass the bill, 
because it will involve us in a charge of unknown extent. We are 
reminded, that when the general pension law for revolutionary sol- 
diers passed, an expense was incurred far beyond what had been 
contemplated; that the estimate, of the number of surviving revolu- 
tionary soldiers, proved altogether fallacious; and that, for aught we 
know, the same mistake may be committed now. 

Is this objection well-founded ? Let me say, in the first place, that 
if one measure, right in itself, has gone farther than it was intended 
to be carried, for want of accurate provisions, and adequate guards, 
this may furnish a very good reason for supplying such guards and 
provisions in another measure, but can afford no ground at all for 
rejecting such other measure, altogether, if it be in itself just and 
necessary. We should avail ourselves of our experience, it seems to 
me, to correct what has been found amiss; and not draw from it an 
undistinguishing resolution to do nothing, merely because it has 
taught us, that, in something we have already done, we have acted 
with too little care. In the next place, does the fact bear out this 
objection? Is there any difficulty in ascertaining the number of the 
officers who will be benefited by this bill, and in estimating the 
expense, therefore, which it will create? I think there is none. 
The records in the department of war, and the treasury, furnish such 
evidence as that there is no danger of material mistake. The dili- 
gence of the chairman of the committee has enabled him to lay the 
facts, connected with this part of the case, so fully and minutely 
before the Senate, that 1 think no one can feel serious doubt. Indeed, 
it is admitted by the adversaries of the bill, that this objection does 
not apply here with the same force as in the former pension-law. 
It is admitted that there is a greater facility in this case than in that, 
in ascertaining the number and names of those who will be entitled 
to receive that bounty. 



353 

This objection, then, is not founded in true principle; and if it 
were, it is not sustained by the facts. I think we ought not to 
yield to it, unless, (which I know is not the sentiment which pervades 
the Senate,) feeling that the measure ought not to pass, we still pre- 
fer not to place our opposition to it on a distinct and visible ground, 
but to veil it under vague and general objections. 

In the second place, it has been objected, that the operation of 
the bill will be unequal, because all officers of the same rank will re- 
ceive equal benefit from it, although they entered the army at dif- 
ferent times, and were of different ages. Sir, is not this that sort 
of inequality which must always exist in every general provision? 
Is it possible that any law can descend into such particulars? Would 
there be any reason why it should do so, if it could.? The bill is 
intended for those, who, being in the Army in October, 1780, then 
received a solemn promise of half-pay for life, on condition that 
^ they would continue to serve through the war. Their ground of 
merit, is, that whensoever they had joined the army, being thus so- 
licited by their country to remain in it, they at once went for the 
whole; they fastened their fortunes to the standards which they bore, 
and resolved to continue their military service till it should termi- 
nate either in their country's success or in their own deaths. This 
is their merit and their ground of claim. How long they had been 
already in service, is immaterial and unimportant. They were then 
in service; the salvation of their country depended on their contin- 
uing in that service. Congress saw this imperative necessity, and 
earnestly solicited them to remain, and promised the compensation. 
They saw the necessity, also, and they yielded to it. 

But, again, it is said that the present time is not auspicious. The 
bill, it is urged, should not pass now. The venerable member from 
North Carolina says, as I understood him, that he would be almost 
as willing that the bill should pass at some other session, as be dis- 
cussed at this. He speaks of the distresses of the country at the 
present moment, and of another bill, now in the Senate, having, as 
he thinks, the effect of laying new taxes upon the people. He is 
for postponement. But it appears to me, with entire respect for the 
honourable member, that this is one of the cases least of all fit for 
postponement. It is not a measure, that, if omitted this year, may 
as well be done next. Before next .year comes, those who need the 
relief may be beyond its reach. To postpone for another year, an 
annuity to persons already so aged; an annuity, founded on the mer- 
it of services which were rendered half a century ago; to postpone, 
for another whole year, a bill for the relief of deserving men, — pro- 
posing not aggrandizement but support; not emolument but bread; 
is a mode of disposing of it, in wiiich I cannot ccmcur. 

But it is argued, in the next place, that the hill ought not to pass 
because those who have spoken in its favor have placed it on dif- 
ferent grounds. They have not agreed, it is said, whether it is to 
be regarded as a matter of right, or matter of gratuity, or bounty. 
Is there weight in this objection? If some think the grant ought to 
be made, as an exercise of judicious and well deserved bounty, docs 
it weaken tljat ground that others think it founded in strict right, 
and that we cannot refuse it without manifest and palpable injustice? 

45 FF=^ 



354 

Or, is it strange, that those who feel the legal justice of the claim, 
should address to those who do not feci it, considerations of a dif- 
ferent character, hut fit to have weight, and which they hope may 
have weight? Nothing is more plain and natural than the course 
which this application has taken. The applicants, themselves, have 
placed it on the ground of equity and law. They advert to the 
resolve of 1 780, to the commutation of 1783, and to the mode of fund- 
ing the certificates. They stand on their contract. This is perfect- 
ly natural. On that basis, they can wield the argument themselves. 
Of what is required by justice and equity, they may reason even 
in their own case. But when the application is placed on different 
grounds; when personal merit is to be urged, as the fbundation of 
a just and economical bounty; when services are to be mentioned; 
privations recounted; pains enumerated; and wounds and scars 
counted; the discussion necessarily devolves to other hands. In all 
that we have seen from these officers in the various papers present-It 
ed by them, it cannot but be obvious to every one, how Tittle is said 
of personal merit, and how exclusively they confine themselves to 
what they think their rights under the contract. 

I must confess, sir, that principles of equity, which appear to me 
as plain as the sun, are urged by the memorialists th(?mselves with 
great caution, and much qualification. They advance their claim 
of right, without extravagance or overstraining; and they submit to 
it the unimpassioned sense of justice of the Senate. 

For myself, I am free to say, that if it were a case between indi- 
vidual and individual, I think the officers would be entitled to relief 
in a court of equity. I may be mistaken, but such is my opinion. 
My reasons are, that T do not think they had a fair option, in regard 
to the commutation of half-pay. I do not think it was fairly in their 
power to accept or reject that offer. The condition they were in, 
and the situation of the country, compelled them to submit to what- 
ever was proposed. In the next place it seems to me too evident 
to be denied, that the five years' full pay was never really and fully 
made to them. A formal compliance with the terms of the contract, 
not a real compliance, is at most all that was ever done. For these 
reasons, I think, in an individual case, law and equity would reform 
the settlement. The conscience of chancery would deal with this 
case as with other cases of hard bargains; of advantages obtained 
by means of inequality of situation; of acknowledged debts, corn- 
pounded from necessity, or compromised without satisfaction. But, 
although such would be my views of this claim, as between man 
and man, 1 do not place my vote for this bill on that ground. I see 
the consequence of admitting the claim, on the foundation of strict 
right. I see at once, that, on that ground, the heirs of the dead 
would claim, as well as the living; and that other public creditors, 
as well as these holders of commutation certificates, would also have 
whereof to complain. I know it is ;dtogether impossible to open 
the accounts of the revolution, and to think of doing justice to 
everybody. Much of suffering there necessarily was, that can nev- 
er be paid for; much of loss that can never be repaired. I do not, 
therefore, for myself, rest my vote on grounds leading to any such 
consequences. I feel constrained to say, that we cannot do, and 



355 

ought not to think of doing, everything in regard to revolutionary 
debts, which might be strictly right, if the whole settlement were 
now to be gone over anew. The honorable member from JVew 
York [Mr. Van Buren,] has stated, what I think the true ground 
of the bill. I regard it as an act of discreet and careful bounty, 
drawn forth by meritorious services, and by personal necessities. I 
cannot argue, in this case, with the technicality of my profession; 
and because I do not feel able to allow the claim on the ground of 
mere right, I am not willing, for that reason, to nonsuit the petition- 
ers, as not having made out their case. Suppose we admit, as I do, 
that on the ground of mere right, it would not be safe to allow it; 
or, suppose that to be admitted for which others contend, that there 
is in the case no strict right upon which, under any circumstan- 
ces, the claim could stand; still, it does not follow that there is no 
reasonable and proper foundation for it, or that it ought not to be 
granted. If it be not founded on strict right, it is not to be regard- 
ed as being, for that reason alone, an undeserved gratuity, or the 
eftusion of mere good will. If that which is granted be not always 
granted on the ground of absolute right, it does not follow that it is 
granted from merely an arbitrary preference, or capricious benefi- 
cence. In most cases of this sort, mixed considerations prevail, 
and ought to prevail Some consideration is due to the claim of 
right; much to that of merit and service; and more to that of per- 
sonal necessity. If I knew that all the persons to be benefited by 
this bill were in circumstances of comfort and competency, I should 
not support it. But this I know to be otherwise. I cannot dwell 
with propriety, or delicacy, on this part of the case; but I feel its 
force, and I yield to it. A single instance of affluence, or a kw 
cases where want does not tread close on those who are themselves 
treading close on the borders of the grave, does not affect the gen- 
eral propriety and necessity of the measure. I would not draw this 
reason for the bill into too much prominence. We all know it exists; 
and we may, I think, safely act upon it, without so discussing it as 
to wound, in old, but sensitive, and still throbbing bosoms, feelings 
which education inspired, the habits of military life cherished, and a 
just self-respect is still desirous to entertain. I confess I meet this 
claim, not only with a desire to do something in favor of these 
officers, but to do it in a manner indicative not only of decorum but 
of deep respect, — that respect which years, age, public service, 
patriotism, and broken fortune, command to spring up in every man- 
ly breast. 

It is, then, sir, a mixed claim, of faith and public gratitude; of 
justice and honorable bounty; of merit and benevolence. It stands 
on the same foundation as that grant, which no one regrets, of 
which all are proud, made to the illustrious foreigner, who showed 
himself so early, and has proved himself so constantly, and zealous- 
ly, a friend to our country. 

But then, again, it is objected, that the militia have a claim upon 
us; that they fought at the side of the regular soldiers, and ought 
to share in the country's remembrance. It is known to be impossi- 
ble, to carry the measure to such an extent as to embrace the militia; 
and it is plain, too, that the cases are difierent. The bill, as I have 



356 

already said, confines itself to those who served not occasionally, 
not temporarily, but permanently; who allowed themselves to be 
counted on as men who were to see the contest throueh, last as Ions: 
as it might; and who have made the phrase, of " 'listing during the 
war," a proverbial expression, signifying unalterable devotion to our 
cause, through good fortune and ill fortune, till it reaches its close. 
This is a plain distinction; and although, perhaps, I might wish to 
do more, I see good ground to stop here, for the present, if we must 
stop anywhere. The militia who fought at Concord, at Lexington, 
and at Bunker's Hill, have been alluded to, in the course of this 
debate, in terms of well-deserved praise. Be assured, sir, there 
could with difficulty be found a man, who drew his sword, or carried 
his musket, at Concord, at Lexington, or Bunker's Hill, who would 
wish you to reject this bill. They might ask you to do more; but 
never to refrain from doing this. Would to God they were assem- 
bled here, and had the fate of the bill in their own hands! Would 
to God, the question of its passage was. to be put to them! They 
would affirm it, with a unity of acclamation that would rend the roof 
of the capitol. 

I support the measure, then, Mr. President, because I think it a 
proper and judicious exercise of well-merited national bounty. I 
think, too, the general sentiment of my own constituents, and of the 
country, is in favor of it. I believe the member from North Caroli- 
na, himself, admitted, that an increasing desire, that something should 
be done for the revolutionary officers, manifested itself in the com- 
munity. The bill will make no immediate or great draught on the 
treasury. It will not derange the finances. If 1 had supposed that 
the state of the treasury would have been urged against the pas- 
sage of this bill, I should not have voted for the Delaware break- 
water, because that might have been commenced next year; nor for 
the whole of the sums which have been granted for fortifications; for 
their advancement, with a little more or little less of rapidity, is not 
of the first necessity. But the present case is urgent. What we 
do, should be done quickly. 

Mr. President, allow me to repeat, that neither the subject, nor 
the occasion, is an ordinary one. Our own fellow citizens do not 
so consider it; the world will not so regard it. A few deserving 
soldiers are before us, who served their country faithfully through 
a seven years' war. That war was a civil war. It was commenced 
on principle, and sustained l)y every sacrifice, on the great ground 
of civil liberty. They fought bravely, and bled freely. The cause 
succeeded, and the country triumphed. But the condition of things 
did not allow that country, sensible as it was to their services and 
merits, to do them the full justice which it desired. It could not 
entirely fiilfil its engagements. The army was to be disbanded; but 
it was unpaid. It was to lay down its own power; but there was no 
government with adequate power to perform what had been promised 
to it. In this critical moment, what is its conduct? Does it dis- 
grace its high character? Is temptation able to seduce it? Does 
it speak of rigiiting itself? Does it undertake to redress its own 
wrongs, by its own sword? Does it lose its patriotism in its deep 



357 

sense of injury and injustice? Does military ambition cause its in- 
tegrity to swerve? Far, far otherwise. 

It had faithfully served and saved the country; and to that coun- 
try it now referred, with unhesitating contidence, its claim and its 
complaints. It laid down its arms with alacrity; it mingled itself 
with the mass of the community; and it waited till, in better times, 
and under a new government, its services might be rewarded, and 
the promises made to it fuUilled. Sir, this example is worth more, 
far more, to the cause of civil liberty, than this bill will cost us. 
We can hardly recur to it too often, or dwell on it too much, for 
the honor of our country, and of its defenders. Allow me to say 
again, that meritorious service in civil war is worthy of peculiar 
consideration; not only because there is, in such war, usually less 
power to restrain irregularities, but because, also, they expose all 
prominent actors in them, to different kinds of danger. It is rebel- 
lion, as well as war. Those who engage in it must look not only to 
the dangers of the field, but to confiscation also, and attainder, and 
ignominious death. With no eflScient and settled government, either 
to sustain or to control them, and with every sort of danger before 
them, it is great merit to have conducted with fidelity to the coun- 
try, under every discouragement on the one hand, and with uncon- 
querable bravery towards the common enemy on the other. So, sir, 
the officers and soldiers of the revolutionary army did conduct. 

I would not, and do not underrate the services or the sufferings 
of others. I know well, that in the revolutionary contest, all made 
sacrifices, and all endured sufferings; as well those who paid for 
service, as those who performed it. I know, that, in the records of 
all the little municipalities of New England, abundant proof exists, 
of the zeal with which the cause was espoused, and the sacrifices 
with which it was cheerfully maintained. I have oflen there read, 
with absolute astonishment, the taxes, the contributions, the heavy 
subscriptions, often provided for by disposing of the absolute neces- 
saries of life; by which enlistments were procured, and food and 
clothing furnished. It would be, sir, to these same municipalities, 
to these same little patriotic councils of revolutionary times, that I 
should now look, with most assured confidence, for a hearty sup- 
port of what this bill proposes. There, the scale of revolutionary 
merit stands high. There are still those living, who speak of the 
19th of April, and the 17th of June, without thinking it necessary 
to add the year. These men, one and all, would rejoice to find that 
those who stood by the country bravely, through the doubtful and 
perilous struggle which conducted it to independence and glory, had 
not been forgotten in the decline and close of life. 

The objects, then, sir, of the proposed bounty, are most worthy 
and deserving objects. The services which they rendered, were 
in the highest degree uselul and important. The country to which 
they rendered them, is great and prosperous. They have lived to 
see it glorious; let them not live to see it unkind. For me, I can 
give them but my vote, and my prayers; and I give them both with 
my whole heart. 



SPEECHES 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE RESOLUTION 
OF MR. FOOTE RESPECTING THE SALE, &c. OF PUBLIC LANDS 
JAN. 1830. 

The resolution was introduced on the 29th of December, 1829, as follows : — 

"Resolved, That the Committee on Piililic Lands be instructed to inquire and report the 
quantity of public lands remaining unsold within each State and Territory. And whether it 
be expedient to limit, for a certain period, die sales of the public lands to such lands only 
as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to entiy at the minimum 
price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor General, and some of the land offices, 
may not be abolished without detriment to the public interest; or whether it be expedient 
to adopt measures to hasten the sales and extend more rapidly the surveys of the public lands." 

On the 18th of January, Mr. Benton of Missouri addressed the Senate; and on the 19th, 
Mr. Hayne, of South Carolina, proceeded in the debate, and spoke at considerable length. 
After he had concluded Mr. Webster rose to reply, but gave way, on motion of Mr. Benton 
for an adjournment. 

On tlte 20th, Mr. Webster took tlie floor, and spoke as follows : 

Nothing has been farther from my intention than to take any part 
in the discussion of this resolution. It proposes only an inquiry on 
a subject of much importance, and one in regard to which it might 
strike the mind of the mover, and of other gentlemen, that inquiry 
and investigation would be useful. Although I am one of those who 
do not perceive any particular utility in instituting the inquiry, I have, 
nevertheless, not seen that harm would be likely to result from adopt- 
ing the resolution. Indeed, it gives no new powers and hardly im- 
poses any new duty, on the committee. All that the resolution proposes 
should be done, the committee is quite competent, without the reso- 
lution, to do by virtue of its ordinary powers. But, sir, although 
I have felt quite indifferent about the passing of the resolution, yet 
opinions were expressed yesterday on the general sutiject of the 
puiilic lands, and on some other subjects, by the gentleman from 
South Carolina, so widely different from my own, that I am not wil- 
ling to let the occasion pass without some reply. If I deemed the 
resolution as originally proposed hardly necessary, still less do I 
think it either necessary or expedient to adopt it, since a second 
branch has been added to it to day. By this second branch, the com- 
mittee is to be instructed to incpiire whether it be expedient to adopt 
measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the surveys 
of the public lands. 



359 

Now it appears, that, in forty years, Mr. President, we have sold 
no more than at)oiit twenty millions of acres of public lands. The 
annual sales do not now exceed, and never have exceeded, one mil- 
lion of acres. A million a year is, according to our experience, as 
much as the increase of population can bring into settlement. And 
it appears, also, that we have, at this moment, sir, surveyed and in 
the market, ready for sale, two hundred and ten milhons of acres, or 
thereabouts. All this vast mass, at this moment, lies on our hands, 
for mere want of purchasers. Can any man, looking to the real inter- 
ests of the country and the people, seriously think of inquiring 
whether we ought not still faster to hasten the public surveys, and 
to bring, still more and more rapidly, other vast quantities into the 
market.'' The truth is, that rapidly as population has increased, the 
surveys have, nevertheless, outran our wants. There are more lands 
than purchasers. They are now sold at low prices, and taken up as 
fast as the increase of people furnishes hands to take them up. — It 
is obvious, that no artificial regulation, no forcing of sales, no giv- 
ing away of the lands even, can produce any great and sudden aug- 
mentation of population. The ratio of increase, though great, has 
yet its bounds. Hands for labor are multiplied only at a certain 
rate. The lands cannot be settled but by settlers; nor faster than 
settlers can be found. A system, if now adopted, of forcing sales, 
at whatever prices, may have the elfect of throwing large quantities 
into the hands of individuals, who would, in this way, in time, be- 
come themselves competitors with the government, in the sale of 
* land. My own opinion has uniformly been, that the public lands 
should be offered freely, and at low prices; so as to encourage set- 
tlement and cultivation as rapidly as the increasing population of 
the country is competent to extend settlement and cultivation. 

Every actual settler should be able to buy good land, at a cheap 

rate; but on the other hand, speculation by individuals, on a large 

scale, should not be encouraged, nor should the value of all lands, 

- sold and unsold, be reduced to nothing, by throwing new and vast 

quantities into the market at prices merely nominal. 

I now proceed, sir, to some of the ojjinions expressed by the gen- 
tleman from South Carolina. Two or three topics were touched by 
him, in regard to which he expressed sentiments in which I do not 
at all concur. 

In the first place, sir, the honorable gentleman spoke of the whole 
course and policy of the government, towards those who have pur- 
chased and settled the public lands; and seemed to think this policy 
wrong. He held it to have been, from the first, hard and rigorous; 
he was of opinion, that the United States had acted towards those 
who had subdued the western wilderness, in the spirit of a step- 
mother; that the public domain had been improperly regaided as a 
source of revenue; and that we had rigidly compelled payment for 
that which ought to have been given away. He said we ought to 
have followed the analogy of other governments, which had acted 
on a much more liberal system than ours, in planting colonies. He 
dwelt, particularly, upon the settlement of America by colonies 
from Europe; and reminded us, that their governments had not ex- 
acted from those colonists payment for the soil ; with them, he said, 



360 

it had been thought, that the conquest of the wilderness was, itself, 
an equivalent for the soil, and he lamented that we had not followed 
that example, and pursued the same liberal course towards our own 
emigrants to the West. 

IVow, sir, I deny, altogether, that there has been anything harsh 
or severe, in the policy of the government towards the new states 
of the West. On the contrary, I maintain, that it has uniformly 
pursued, towards those states, a liberal and enlightened system, 
such as its own duty allowed and required; and such as their inter- 
est and welfare demanded. The government has been no step- 
mother to the new states. She has not been careless of their inter- 
ests, nor deaf to their requests; but from the first moment, when 
the territories which now form those states were ceded to the union, 
down to the time in which I am now speaking, it has been the inva- 
riable object of the government, to dispose of the soil, according to 
the true spirit of the obligation under which it received it; to hasten 
its settlement and cuUivation, as far and as fast as practicable; and 
to rear the new communities into equal and independent states, at 
the earliest moment of their being able, by their numbers, to form 
a regular government. 

I do not admit, sir, that the analogy to which the gentleman refers 
us, is just, or that the cases are at all similar. There is no resem- 
blance between the cases upon which a statesman can found an 
argument. The original North American colonists either fled from 
Europe, like our New England ancestors, to avoid persecution, or 
came hither at their own charges, and often at the ruin of then- 
fortunes, as private adventurers. Generally speaking, they de- 
rived neither succour nor protection from their governments at 
home. Wide, indeed, is the difference between those cases and 
ours. From the very origin of the government, these western lands, 
and the just protection of those who had settled or should settle on 
them, have been the leading objects in our policy, and have led to 
expenditures, both of blood and treasure, not inconsiderable: not 
indeed exceeding the importance of the object, and not yielded 
grudgingly or reluctantly, certainly; but yet not inconsiderable, 
though necessary sacrifices, made for high proper ends. The 
Indian title has been extinguished at the expense of many millions. 
Is that nothing ? There is still a much more material consideration. 
These colonists, if we are to call them so, in passing the Alleghany, 
did not pass beyond the care and protection of their own govern- 
ment. Wherever they went, the public arm was still stretched over 
them. A parental government at home was still ever mindful of 
their condition, and their wants, and nothing was spared, which a 
just sense of their necessities required. Is it forgotten, that it was 
one of the mo.st arduous duties of the government, in its earliest 
years, to deffend the frontiers against the northwestern Indians ? 
Are the sufierings and misfortunes under Harmar and St. Clair, 
not worthy to be remembered? Do the occurrences connected with 
these military efforts show an unfeeling neglect of western interests? 
And here, sir, what becomes of the gentleman's analogy? What 
English armies accompanied our ancestors to clear the ibrests of a 
barbarous foe? What treasures of the Exchequer were expended 



361 

in buying up the original title to the soil? What governmental arm 
held its aegis over our fathers' heads, as they pioneered their way 
in the wilderness? Sir, it was not till General Wayne's victory, in 
1794, that it could be said, we had conquered the savages. It was 
not till that period, that the government could have considered itself 
as having established an entire ability to protect those who should 
undertake the conquest of the wilderness. And here, sir, at the 
epoch of 1794, let us pause, and survey the scene. It is now thirty- 
five years since that scene actually existed. Let us, sir, look back, 
and behold it. Over all that is now Ohio, there then stretched one 
vast wilderness, unbroken, except by two small spots of civilized 
culture, the one at Marietta, and the other at Cincinnati. At these 
little openings, hardly each a pin's point upon the map, the arm of 
the frontierman had levelled the forest, and let in the sun. These 
little patches of earth, and themselves almost overshadowed by the 
overhanging boughs of that wilderness, which had stood and per- 
petuated itself, from century to century, ever since the creation, 
were all that had then been rendered verdant by the hand of man. In 
an extent of hundreds, and thousands of square miles, no other sur- 
face of smiling green attested the presence of civilisation. The 
hunter's path crossed mighty* rivers, flowing in solitary grandeur, 
whose sources lay in remote and unknow-n regions of the wilderness. 
It struck, upon the north, on a vast inland sea, over which the win- 
try tempests raged as on the ocean; all around was bare creation. 
It was fresh, untouched, unbounded, magnificent wilderness. And, 
sir, what is it now? Is it imagination only, or can it possibly be 
fact, that presents such a change, as surprises and astonishes us, 
when we turn our eyes to what Ohio now is? Is it reality, or a 
dream, that in so short a period even as thirty-five years, there has 
sprung up, on the same surface, an independent state, with a million 
of people? A million of inhabitants ! an amount of population 
greater than that of all the cantons of Switzerland; equal to one 
third of all the people of the United States, when they undertook to 
accomplish their independence. This new member of the republic 
has already left far behind her, a majority of the old states. She is 
now by the side of Virginia and Pennsylvania; and, in point of num- 
bers, will shortly admit no equal but New York herself. If, sir, 
we may judge of measures by their results, what lessons do these 
facts read us, upon the policy of the government? What inferen- 
ces do they authorise, upon the general question of kindness, or 
unkindness? What convictions do they enforce, as to the wisdom 
and ability, on the one hand, or the folly and incapacity, on the other, 
of our general administration of western affairs? Sir, does it not 
require some portion of self-respect in us, to imagine, that if our 
light had shone on the path of government, if our wisdom could 
have been consulted in its measures, a more rapid advance to strength 
and prosperity would have been experienced? For my own part, 
while I am struck with wonder at the success, I also look with admi- 
ration at the wisdom and foresight which originally arranged and 
prescribed the system for the settlement of the public domain. Its 
operation has been, without a moment's interriiption, to push tlie set- 
tlement ol the western country to the full extent ot onr lUmost means. 

46 GG 



362 

But, sir, to return to the remarks of the honorable member from 
South CaroHna. He says that Congress has sold these lands, and 
put the money into the treasury, while other governments, acting 
in a more liberal spirit, gave away their lands; and that we ought, 
also, to have given ours away. I shall not stop to state an account 
between our revenues derived from land, and our expenditures in 
Indian treaties and Indian wars. But, I must refer the honorable 
gentleman to the origin of our own title to the soil of these territo- 
ries, and remind him that we received them on conditions, and un- 
der trusts, which would have been violated by giving the soil away. 
For compliance with those conditions, and the~just execution of 
those trusts, the public faith was solemnly pledged. The public 
lands of the United States have been derived from four principal 
sources. First, cessions made to the United States by individual 
states, on the recommendation or request of the old Congress. Sec- 
ond. The compact with Georgia, in 1802. Third. The purchase 
of Louisiana in 1803. Fourth. The purchase of Florida, in 1819 
Of the tirst class, the most important was the cession by Virginia, 
of all her right and title, as well of soil as jurisdiction, to all the 
territory within the limits of her charter, lying to the northwest of 
the river Ohio. It may not be ill timed to recur to the causes and 
occasions of this and the other similar grants. 

When the war of the revolution broke out, a great difference ex- 
isted in different states, in the proportion between people and terri- 
tory. The northern and eastern states, with very small surfaces, 
contained comparatively a thick population, and there was generally 
within their limits, no great quantity of waste lands belonging to 
the government, or the crown of England. On the contrary, there 
were in the southern states, in Virginia and in Georgia for example, 
extensive public domains, wholly unsettled, and belonging to the 
crown. As these possessions would necessarily fall from the crown, 
in the event of a prosperous issue of the war, it was insisted that 
they ought to devolve on the United States, for the good of the whole. 
The war, it was argued, was undertaken and carried on at the com- 
mon expense of all the colonics; its benefits, if successful, ought 
also to be common; and the property of the common enemy, when 
vanquished, ought to be regarded as the general acquisition of all. 
While yet the war was raging, it was contended that Congress ought 
to have the power to dispose of vacant and unpatented lands, com- 
monly called crown lands, for defraying the expenses of the war, 
and for other public and general purposes. " Reason and Justice," 
said the Assembly of New Jersey, in 1778, "must decide, that the 
property which existed in the crown of Great Britain, previous to 
the present revolution, ought now to belong to the Congress, in trust 
for the use and benefit of the United States^ They have fought and 
bled for it, in proportion to their respective abilities, and therefore the 
reward ought not to l)e predilectionally distributed. Shall such states 
as arc sluit out, by situation, from availing themselves of the least 
advantage from this quarter, be lefl to sink under an enormous debt, 
whilst others arc enabled, in a short period, to replace all their ex- 
penditures from tlie hard earnings of the whole confederacy?" 



^ 363 

Moved by these considerations, and these addresses made it, 
Congress took up the subject, and in September, 1780, recommen- 
ded to the several states in the union, having chiims to western 
territory, to make liberal cessions of a portion thereof to the Uni- 
ted States; and on the 10th of October, 1780, Congress resolved, 
that any lands, so ceded in pursuance of their preceding recommen- 
dation, should be disposed of for the common benetit of the United 
States; should be settled and formed into distinct republican states, 
to become members of the Federal union, with the same rights of 
sovereignty, freedom and independence as the other states; and 
that the lands should be granted, or settled, at such times, and un- 
der such regulations, as should be agreed on by Congress. Again 
in September 1783, Congress passed another resolution, expres- 
sing the conditions on which cessions from states should be received; 
and in October following, Virginia made her cession, reciting the 
resolution, or act, of September preceding, and then transferring her 
title to her northwestern territory to the United States, upon the 
express condition, that the lands, so ceded, should be considered as 
a common fund for the use and benefit of such of the United States 
as had become or should become members of the confederation, 
Virginia inclusive, and should be faithfully and bona fide disposed 
of for that purpose, and for no other use or purpose whatever. The 
grants from other states were on similar conditions. Massachusetts 
and Connecticut both had claims to western lands, and both relin- 
quished them to the United States in the same manner. These 
grants were all made on three substantial conditions or trusts. First, 
that the ceded territories should be formed into states, and admit- 
ted in due time into the union, with all the rights belonging to other 
states. Second, that the lands should form a common fund to be 
disposed of for the general benetit of all the states. Third, that 
they should be sold and settled, at such time and in such manner as 
Congress should direct. 

JVow, sir, it is plain that Congress never has been, and is not now, 
at liberty to disregard these solemn conditions. For the fulfilment 
of all these trusts, the public faith was, and is, fully pledged. How, 
then, would it have been possible for Congress, if it had been so dis- 
posed, to give away these public lands? How could they have fol- 
lowed the example of other governments, if there had been such, 
and considered the conquest of the wilderness an equivalent com- 
pensation for the soil? — The states had looked to this territory, per- 
haps too sanguinely, as a fund out of which means were to come to 
defray the expenses of the war. It had been received as a fund, as 
a fund Congress had bound itself to apply it. To have given it away, 
would have defeated all the objects which Congress, and particular 
states, had had in view, in asking and obtaining the cession, and 
would have plainly violated the conditions, which the ceding states 
attached to their own grants. 

The gentleman admits, that the lands cannot be given away until 
the national debt is paid; because, to a part of that debt they stand 
pledged. But this is not the original pledge. There is, so to speak, 
an earlier mortgage. Before the debt was funded, at the moment of 
the cession of the lands, and by the very terms of that cession, every 



364 

state in the union obtained an interest in them, as in a common 
fund. Congress has uniformly adhered to this condition. It has 
proceeded to sell the lands, and to realize as much from them, as was 
compatible with the other trusts created by the same deeds of cession. 
One of these deeds of trust, as I have already said, was, that the 
lands should be sold and settled, at such time or manner as Congress 
shall direct. The government has always felt itself bound, in regard 
to sale and settlement, to exercise its own best judgment, and not to 
transfer the discretion to others. It has not felt itself at liberty to 
dispose of the soil, therefore, in large masses, to individuals, thus 
leaving to them the time and manner of settlement. It had stipula- 
ted to use its own judgment. If, for instance, in order to rid itself 
of the trouble of forming a system for the sale of those lands, and go- 
ing into detail, it had sold the whole of what is now Ohio, in one mass, 
to individuals, or companies, it would clearly have departed from its 
just obligations. And who can now tell, or conjecture, how great 
would have been the evil of such a course ? Who can say, what mis- 
chiefs would have ensued, if Congress had thrown these territories 
into the hands of private speculation? Or who, on the other hand, 
can now foresee, what the event would be, should the government de- 
part from the same wise course hereafter; and, not content with such 
constant absorption of the public lands as the natural growth of our 
population may accomplish, should force great portions of them, at 
nominal or very low prices, into private hands, to be sold and settled, 
as and when such holders might think would be most for their own in- 
terests? Hitherto, sir, I maintain. Congress has acted wisely, and 
done its duty on this subject. I hope it will continue to do it. — De- 
parting from the original idea, so soon as it was found practicable and 
convenient, of selling by townships. Congress has disposed of the soil 
in smaller and still smaller portions, till, at length, it sells in parcels 
of no more than eighty acres; thus putting it into the power of every 
man in the country, however poor, but who has health and strength, 
to become a freeholder if he desires, not of barren acres, but of rich 
and fertile soil. The government has performed all the conditions 
of the grant. — While it has regarded the public lands as a common 
fund, and has sought to make what reasonably could be made of them, 
as a source of revenue, it has also applied its best wisdom to sell and 
settle them, as fast and as hapjjily as possible; and whensoever num- 
bers would warrant it, each territory has been successively admitted 
into the union, with all the rights of an independent state. 

Is there then, sir, I ask, any well founded charge of hard dealing; 
any just accusation for negligence, indifference, or parsimony, which 
is capable of being sustained against the government of the country, 
in its conduct, towards tlie new states? Sir, I think there is not. 

But there was another observation of the honorable member, 
which, I confess, did not a little surprise me. As a reason for 
wishing to get rid of the public lands as soon as we could, and as we 
might, the honorable gentleman said, he wanted no permanent 
sources of income. He wished to see the time when the govern- 
ment should not possess a shilling of permanent revenue. If he 
could speak a magical word, and by that word convert the whole 
capitol into gold, the word should not be spoken. The admin- 



365 

istration of a fixed revenue, he said, only consolidates the govern- 
ment, and corrupts the people! Sir, I confess I heard these sen- 
timents uttered on this floor, not without deep regret and pain. 

I am aware that these, and similar opinions, are espoused by cer- 
tain persons out of the capitol, and out of this government; but I 
did not expect so soon to find them here. Consolidation! — thai 
perpetual cry, both of terror and delusion — Consolidation! Sir, 
when gentlemen speak of the effects of a common fund, belonging 
to all the states, as having a tendency to consolidation, what do they 
mean? Do they mean, or can they mean, anything more than that 
the union of the states will be strengthened, by whatever continues 
or furnishes inducements to the people of the states to hold togeth- 
er? If they mean merely this, then, no doubt, the public lands as 
well as everything else in which we have a common interest, tends 
to consolidation; and to this species of consolidation every true 
American ought to be attached; it is neither more nor less than 
strenathenins: the union itself This is the sense in which the 
framers of the constitution use the word consolidation; and in which 
sense I adopt and cherish it. They tell us, in the letter submitting 
the constitution to the consideration of the country, that " In all 
our deliberations on this subject, we kept steadily in our view that 
which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, 
the consolidation of our union, in which is involved our prosperity, 
felicity, safety, perhaps our national existence. This important 
consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on our minds, led 
each state in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior 
magnitude, than might have been otherwise expected." 

This, sir, is Gen. Washington's consolidation. This is the true 
constitutional consolidation. I wish to see no new powers drawn to 
the general government; but I confess I rejoice in whatever tends 
to strengthen the bond that unites us, and encourages the hope that 
our union may be perpetual. And, therefore, I cannot but feel 
regret at the expression of such opinions as the gentleman has 
avowed; because I think their obvious tendency is to weaken the 
bond of our connexion. I know that there are some persons in the 
part of the country from which the honorable member comes, who 
habitually speak of the union in terms of indillerence, or even of 
disparagement. The honorable member himself is not, I trust, and 
can never be, one of these. They significantly declare, that it is 
time to calculate the value of the union; and their aim seems to be 
to enumerate, and to magnify all the evils, real and imaginary, 
which the government under the union produces. 

The tendency of all these ideas and sentiments is obviously to 
bring the union into discussion, as a mere question of present and 
temporary expediency — nothing more than a mere "matter of profit 
and loss. The union is to be preserved, while it suits local and 
temporary purposes to preserve it; and to be sundered whenever it 
shall be found to thwart such purposes. Union, of itself, is con- 
sidered by the disciples of this school as hardly a good. — It is 
only regarded as a possible means of good; or, on the other hand, 
as a possible means of evil. They clierish no deep and fixed regaid 
for it, flowing from a thorough conviction of its absolute and vital 



366 

necessity to our welfare. Sir, 1 deprecate and deplore this tone of 
thinking and acting. I deem far otherwise of the union of the 
states j and so did the framers of the constitution themselves. What 
they said I believe; fully and sincerely believe, that the union of 
the states is essential to the prosperity and safety of the states. I 
am a unionist, and in this sense, a national republican. I would 
strengthen the ties that hold us together. Far, indeed, in my wishes, 
very far distant be the day, when our associated and iraternal stripes 
shall be severed asunder, and when that happy constellation under 
which we have risen to so much renown, shall be broken up, and be 
seen sinking, star after star, into obscurity and night ! 

Among other things, the honorable member spoke of the public 
debt. To that he holds the public lands pledged, and has expressed 
his usual earnestness for its total discharge. Sir, I have always 
voted for every measure for reducing the debt, since I have been in 
Congress. I wished it paid because it is a debt; and, so far, is a 
charge upon the industry of the country, and the linances of the 
government. But, sir, I have observed, that, whenever the subject 
of the public debt is introduced into the Senate, a morbid sort of 
fervor is manifested in regard to it, which I have been sometimes at 
a loss to understand. The debt is not now large, and is in a course 
of most rapid reduction. A very iew years will see it extin- 
guished. — JN'ow I am not entirely able to persuade myself that it is 
not certain supposed incidental tendencies and effects of this debt, 
rather than its pressure and charge as a debt, that cause so much 
anxiety to get rid of it. Possibly it may be regarded as in some de- 
gree a tie, holding the different parts of the country together, by 
considerations of mutual interest. If this be one of its effects, the 
effect itself is, in my opinion, not to be lamented. Let me not be 
misunderstood. I would not continue the debt for the sake of any 
collateral or consequential advantage, such as I have mentioned. 
I only mean to say, that that consequence itself is not one that I re- 
gret. At the same time; that if there are others who would, or who 
do regret it, I differ from them. 

As I have already remarked, sir, it was one among the reasons 
assigned by the honorable member for his wish to be rid of the pub- 
lic lands altogether, that the public disposition of them, and the rev- 
enues derived from them, tend to corrupt the people. This, sir, I 
confess, passes my comprehension. These lands are sold at public 
auction, or taken up at fixed prices, to form farms and freeholds. 
Whom does this corrupt.' According to the system of sales, a fixed 
pro|)ortion is everywhere reserved, as a fund for education. Does 
education corrupt? Is the schoolmaster a corrupter of youth.' the 
spelling book, does it break down tlie morals of the rising genera- 
tion.' and the Holy Scriptures, are they fountains of corruption? Or 
if, in the exercise of a provident liberahty, in regard to its own pro- 
perty as a great landed proprietor, and to high purposes of utility 
towards others, the government gives portions of these lands to the 
making of a canal, or the opening of a road, in the country where 
the lands themselves are situated, what alarming and overwhelming 
corruption follows from all this? Can there be nothing pure in gov- 
ernment, except the exercise of mere control? Can nothing be done 



.367 

without corruption, but the impositions of penaUy and restraint? 
Whatever is positively beneficent, whatever is actively good, what- 
ever spreads abroad benetits and blessings which all can see, and all 
can feel, whatever opens intercourse, augments population, enhances 
the value of property and diffuses knowledge — must all this be re- 
jected and reprobated as a dangerous and obnoxious policy, hurrying 
us to the double ruin of a government, turned into despotism by the 
mere exercise of acts of beneficence, and of a people, corrupted, 
beyond hope of rescue, by the improvement of their condition? 

The gentleman proceeded, sir, to draw a frightful picture of the 
future. He spoke of the centuries that must elapse, before all the 
lands could be sold, and the great hardships that the states must suf- 
fer while the United States reserved to itself, within their limits, 
such large portions of soil, not liable to taxation. Sir, this is all, or 
mostly imagination. If these lands were leasehold property, if they 
were held by the United States on rent, there would be much in the 
idea. But they are wild lands, held only till they can be sold; re- 
served no longer than till somebody will take them up, at low prices. 
As to their not being taxed, I would ask whether the states themselves, 
if they owned them, would tax them before sale ? Sir, if in any case 
any state can show that the policy of the United States retards her 
settlement, or prevents her from cuUivating the lands within her lim- 
its, she shall have my vote to alter that policy. But I look upon the 
public lands as a public fund, and that we are no more author- 
ised to give them away gratuitously than to give away gratuitously 
the money in the treasury. I am quite aware, that the sums drawn 
annually from the western states make a heavy drain upon them, but 
that is unavoidable. For that very reason, among others, I have al- 
ways been inclined to pursue towards them a kind and most liberal 
policy, but 1 am not at liberty to forget, at the same time, what is 
due to other states, and to the solemn engagements under which the 
government rests. 

I come now, Mr. President, to that part of the gentleman's speech, 
which has been the main occasion of my addressing the Senate. The 
East! the obnoxious, the rebuked, the always reproached East! 
We have come in, sir, on this debate, for even more than a common 
share of accusation and attack. If the honorable member from 
South Carolina was not our original accuser, he has yet recited the 
indictment against us with the air and tone of a public prosecutor. 
He has summoned us to plead on our arraignment; and he tells us 
we are charged with the crime of a narrow and selfish policy; of en- 
deavouring to restrain emigration to the West, and having that object 
in view, of maintaining a steady opposition to western measures and 
western interests. And the cause of all this narrow and selfish pol- 
icy, the gentleman finds in the tarifl;"— I think he called it the accurs- 
ed policy of the tariff. This policy, the gentleman tells us, requires 
multitudes of dependent laborers, a population of paupers, and that 
it is to secure these at home, that the East opposes whatever may in- 
duce to western emigration. Sir, I rise to defend the East. I rise 
to repel, both the charge itself, and the cause assigned for it. I de- 
ny that the East has, at any time, shown an illiberal jjolicy towards 
the West. 1 pronounce the whole accusation to be without the least 



368 

foundation in any facts, existing either now, or at any previous time 
I deny it in the general, and I deny each and all its particulars. I de- 
ny the sum total, and I deny the detail. I deny that the East has 
ever manifested hostility to the West, and I deny that she has adopt- 
ed any policy that would naturally have led her in such a course. 

But the tarifi' ! the tariff' ! ! Sir, I beg to say in regard to the 
East, that the original policy of the tariff is not hers, whether it be 
wise or unwise. New England is not its author. If gentlemen 
will recur to the tariff of 1816, they will find that this was not car- 
ried by New England votes. It was truly more a southern, than an 
eastern measure. And what votes carried the tariff of 1824.? 
Certainly, not those of New England, It is known to have been 
made matter of reproach, especially against Massachusetts, that she 
would not aid the tariff of ]8'24; and a selfish motive was imputed to 
her for that also. In point of fact, it is true that she did, indeed, op- 
pose the tariff of 1824. There were more votes in favor of that law 
in the House of Representatives, not only in each of a majority of 
the western states, but even in Virginia herself also, than in Mas- 
sachusetts. It was literally forced upon New England; and this 
shows how groundless, how void of all probability any charge must 
be, which imputes to her hostility to the growth of the western states, 
as naturally flowing from a cherished policy of her own. But leav- 
ing all conjectures about causes and motives, I go at once to the 
fact, and I meet it with one broad, comprehensive, and emphatic 
negative. I deny, that in any part of her history, at any period of 
the government, or in relation to any leading subject, New England 
has manifested such hostility as is charged upon her. On the con- 
trary, I maintain that, from the day of the cession of the territories 
by the states to Congress, no portion of the country has acted, either 
with more liberality or more intelligence, on the subject of the west- 
ern lands, in the liew states, than New England. This statement, 
though strong, is no stronger than the strictest truths will warrant. 
Let us look at the historical facts. So soon as the cessions were 
obtained, it became necessary to make provision for the government 
and disposition of the territory — the country was to be governed. 
This, for the present, it was obvious, must be by some territorial 
system of administration. But the soil, also, was to be granted and 
settled. Those immense regions, large enough almost for an empire, 
were to be appropriated to private ownership. How was this best 
to be done? What system for sale and disposition should be adopt- 
ed.? Two modes for conducting the sales presented themselves; the 
one a southern, and the other a northern mode. It would be tedi- 
ous, sir, here, to run out these difi'erent systems, into all their dis- 
tinctions, and to contrast their opposite results. That which was 
adopted was the northern system, and is that which we now see in 
successful operation in all the new states. That which was reject- 
ed, was the system of warrants, surveys, entry, and location; such 
as prevails south of the Ohio. It is not necessary to extend these 
remarks into invidious comparisons. This last system, is that which, 
as has been emphatically said, has shingled over the country to which 
it was applied, with so many conflicting titles and claims. Every- 
body acquainted with the sul)ject knows how easily it leads to spec- 



369 

ulation and litigation — two great calamities in a new country. From 
the system actually established, these evils are banished. Now, sir, 
in etiecting this great measure, the first important measure on the 
whole subject. New England acted with vigor and effect, and the 
latest posterity of those who settled northwest of the Ohio, will have 
reason to remember, with gratitude, her patriotism and her wisdom. 
The system adopted was her own system. She knew, for she had 
tried and proved its value. It was the oldiashioned way of survey- 
ing lands, before the issuing of anv title papers, and then of insert- 
ing accurate and precise descriptions in the patents or grants, and 
proceeding with regular reference to metes and bounds. — This gives 
to original titles, derived from government, a certain and fixed char- 
acter; it cuts up litigation by the roots, and the settler commences 
his labor with the assurance that he has a clear title. It is easy to 
perceive, but not easy to measure, the importance of this in a new 
country. New England gave this system to the west; and while it 
remains, there will be spread over all the west one monument of 
her intelligence in matters of government, and her practical good 
sense. 

At the foundation of the constitution of these new north western 
states, we are accustomed, sir, to praise the lawgivers of antiquity; 
we help to perpetuate the fame of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt 
whether one single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has pro- 
duced effects of more distinct, marked, and lasting character, than 
the ordinance of '87. That instrument was drawn by Nathan Dane, 
then, and now a citizen of Massachusetts. It was adopted, as I 
think I have understood, without the slightest alteration; and cer- 
tainly it has happened to few men, to be the authors of a political 
measure of more large and enduring consequence. It fixed, forev- 
er, the character of the population in the vast regions northwest of 
the Ohio, by excluding from them involuntary servitude. It impres- 
sed oh the soil itself, while it was yet a wilderness, an incapacity to 
bear up any other than freemen. It laid the interdict against per- 
sonal servitude, in original compact, not only deeper than all local 
law, but deeper, also, than all local constitutions. Under the cir- 
cumstances then existing, I look upon this original and seasonable 
provision, as a real good attained. We see its consequences at this 
moment, and we shall never cease to see them, perhaps, while the 
Ohio shall flow. It was a great and salutary measure of prevention. 
Sir, I should fear the rebuke of no intelligent gentleman of Ken- 
tucky, were I to ask whether, if such an ordinance could have been 
applied to his own state, while it yet was a wilderness, and before 
Boone had passed the gap of the Alleghany, he does not suppose it 
would have contributed to the ultimate greatness of that common- 
wealth.'' It is, at any rate not to be doubted, that where it did apply, 
it has produced an effect not easily to be described, or measured in 
the growth of the states, and the extent and increase of their popu- 
lation. Now, sir, this great measure again was carried by the North 
and by the North alone. There were, indeed, individuals elsewhere 
favorable to it; but it was supported as a measure, entirely by the | 
votes of the northern states. If New England had been governed 
by the narrow and selfish views now ascribed to her, this very mea- 

47 



1 ! 



370 

sure was, of all others, the best calculated to thwart her purposes. 
It was of all things, the very means of rendering certain a vast emi- 
gration from her own population to the west. She looked to that 
consequence only to disregard it. She deemed the regulation a most 
useful one to the states that would spring up on the territory, and ad- 
vantageous to the country at large. She adhered to the principle 
of it perseveringly, year after year, until it was finally accomplished. 

Leaving then, Mr. President, these two great and leading meas- 
ures, and coming down to our own times, what is there in the history 
of recent measures of government that exposes New England to 
this accusation of hostility to western interests.'' I assert, boldly, 
that in all measures conducive to the welfare of the West, since my 
acquaintance here, no part of the country has manifested a more 
liberal policy. I beg to say, sir, that I do not state this with a 
view of claiming for her any special regard on that account. Not 
at all. She does not place her support of measures on the ground 
of favor conferred — far otherwise. What she has done has been con- 
sonant to her view of the general good, and therefore she has done 
it: — She has sought to make no gain of it; on the contrary, individ- 
uals may have felt undoubtedly some natural regret, at finding the 
relative importance of their own states diminished, by the growth 
of the West. But New England has regarded that as in the natural 
course of things, and has never con)plained of it. Let me see, sir, 
any one measure favorable to the West, which has been opposed by 
New England, since the government bestowed its attention to these 
western improvements. Select what you will, if it be a measure of 
acknowledged utility, I answer for ft, it will be found, that not only 
were New England votes for it, but that New England votes carried 
it. Will you take the Cumberland road? who has made that.^ Will 
you take the Portland Canal? whose support carried that bill? Sir, 
at what period beyond the Greek kalends, could these measures, or 
measures like these, have been accomplished, had they depended on 
the votes of southern gentlemen? Why, sir, we know that we 
must have waited till the constitutional notions of those gentlemen 
had undergone an entire change. Generally speaking, they have 
done nothing, and can do nothing. — All that has been efiected, has 
been done by the votes of reproached New England. I undertake 
to say, sir, that if you look to the votes on any one of these meas- 
ures, and strike out from the list of ayes the names of New England 
members, it will be found that in every case, the South would then 
have voted down the West, and the measure would have failed. I do 
not believe any one instance can be found where this is not strictly 
true. I do not believe that one dollar has been expended for these 
purposes beyond the mountain, which could have been obtained with- 
out cordial cooperation and sup])ort from New England. 

Sir, I put tlie gentleman to the West itself Lei gentlemen who 
have sat here ten years, come forth and declare, by what aids, and 
by whose votes they have succeeded, in measures deemed of essen- 
tial importance to their part of the country. To all men of sense 
and candor, in or out of Congress, who have any knowledge upon 
the subject. New England mav iip|)eal, for rcfiitation of the reproach 
now attempted to be cast upon her in this respect. 



371 

I take liberty to repeat, that I make no claim, on behalf of New 
England, or on account of that which I have not stated. She does 
not profess to have acted out of favor; for it would not become her 
so to have acted. She solicits for no especial thanks; but, in the 
consciousness of having done her duty in these things, uprightly 
and honestly, and with a fair and liberal spirit, be assured she will 
repel, whenever she thinks the occasion calls for it, an unjust and 
groundless imputation of partiality and selfishness. 

The gentleman alluded to a report of the late Secretary of the 
Treasury, which, according to his reading or construction of it, re- 
commended what he calls the tariti' policy, or a branch of that policy; 
that is, the restraining of emigration to the West, for the purpose of 
keeping hands at home, to carry on manufactures. I think, sir, that 
the gentleman misapprehended the meaning of the secretary, in the 
interpretation given to his remarks. I understand him only as say- 
ing, that since the low price of lands at the West acts as a constant 
and standing bounty to agriculture, it is, on that account, the more 
reasonable to provide encouragement for manufactures. But, sir, 
even if the secretary's observation were to be understood as the gen- 
tleman understands it, it would not be a sentiment borrowed from 
any New England source. Whether it be right or wrong, it does 
not originate in that quarter. 

In the course of these remarks, Mr. President, I have spoken of 
the supposed desire, on the part of the Atlantic states, to check, 
or at least not to hasten, western emigration, as a narrow policy. 
Perhaps I ought to have qualified the expression; because, sir, I 
am now about to quote the opinion of one, to whom I would impute 
nothing narrow. I am now about to refer you to the language of a 
gentleman of much and deserved distinction, now a member of the 
other House, and occupying a prominent situation there. The gen- 
tleman, sir, is from South Carolina. In 1825, a debate arose in the 
House of Representatives, on the subject of the western road. It 
happened to me to take some part in the debate; I was answered by 
the honorable gentleman to whom I allude, and I replied. May I be 
pardoned, sir, if I read a part of this debate. 

" The gentleman from Massachusetts has urged," said Mr. McD., 
" as one leading reason why the government should make roads to 
the West, that these roads have a tendency to settle the public lands; 
that they increase the inducements to settlement, and that this is a 
national object. Sir, I differ entirely from his views on the subject, 
I think that the public lands are settling quite fast enough; that our 
people need want no stimulus to urge them thither; but want rather 
a check, at least on that artificial tendency to western settlement, 
which we have created by our own laws. 

" The gentleman says, that the great object of government, with 
respect to those lands, is not to make them a source of revenue, but 
to get them settled. — What would have been thought of this argument 
in the old thirteen states? It amounts to this, that those states are 
to offer a bonus of their own impoverishment, to create a vortex to 
swallow up our floating population. Look, sir, at the present as- 
pect of the soutliern states. In no part of Europe will you see the 



372 

same indications of decay. Deserted villages — houses falling to 
ruin — impoverished lands tluown out of cultivation. Sir, I believe 
that if the public lands had never been sold, the aggregate amount 
of the national wealth would have been greater at this moment. 
Our population, if concentrated in the old states and not ground 
down by tariU's, would have been more prosperous and wealthy. 
But every inducement has been held out to them to settle in the west, 
«mtil our population has become sparse, and then the effects of this 
sparseness are now to be counteracted by another artificial system. 
Sir, I say if there is any object worthy the attention of this govern- 
ment, it is a plan which shall limit the sale of the public lands. If 
those lands were sold according to their real value, be it so. But 
while the government continues as it does to give them away, they 
will draw the population of the older states, and still farther increase 
the eflect which is already distressingly felt, and which must go to 
diminish the value of all those states possess. And this, sir, is held 
out to us as a motive for granting the present appropriation. I 
would not, indeed, prevent the formation of roads on these consid- 
erations, but I certainly would not encourage it. Sir, there is an 
additional item in the account of the benefits which this go\ernment 
has conferred on the western states. It is the sale of the |)uhlic 
lands at the minimum price. At this moment we are selling to the 
people of the West, lands at one dollar and twenty-five cents, which 
are worth fifteen, and which would sell at that price if the markets 
were not glutted." 

Mr. Webster observed, in reply, that " the gentleman from South 
Carolina had mistaken him, if he supposed that it was his wish so to 
hasten the sales of the public lands, as to throw them into the hands 
of purchasers, who would sell again. His idea only went as lar as 
this: that the price should be fixed so low as not to prevent the set- 
tlement of the lands, yet not so low as to allow speculators to pur- 
chase. Mr. W. observed that he could not at all concur with the 
gentleman from South Carolina, in wishing to restrain the laboring 
classes of population in the eastern states from going to any part of 
our territory, where they could better their condition; nor did he 
suppose such an idea was anyAvhere entertained. The observations 
of the gentleman had opened to him new views of policy on this 
subject, and he thought he now could perceive why some of our 
states continued to have such bad roads; it must be for the purpose 
of j)reventing people from going out of them. The gentleman from 
South Carolina supposes, that if our population had been confined 
to the old thirteen states, the aggregate wealth of the country would 
have been greater than it now is. But sir, it is an error, that the 
increase of the aggregate of the national wealth, is the object chief- 
ly to be pursued by government. The distribution of the national 
wealth is an object quite as important as its increase. He was not 
surprised that tlie old states, not increasing in population so fast as 
was expected (for he believed nothing like a decrease was pretend- 
ed) should be an idea by no means agreeable to gentlemen from 
those states; we are all reluctant in submitting to tiie loss of relative 
importance — but this was nothing more than the natural condition 
of a country densely populated in one part, and possessing in anoth- 



373 

er a vast tract of unsettled lands. The plan of the gentleman went 
to reverse the order of nature, vainly expecting to retain men with- 
in a small and comparatively unproductive territory ' who have all 
the world before them where to choose.' For his own part, he was 
in favor of letting population take its own course; he should experi- 
ence no feeling of mortification if any of his constituents liked bet- 
ter to settle on the Kansas or Arkansas, or elsewhere within our 
territory; let them go, and be happier if they could. The gentleman 
says, our aggregate of wealth would have been greater if our popu- 
lation had been restrained within the limits of the old states; but does 
he not consider population to be wealth? And has not this been in- 
creased by the settlement of a new and fertile country ? — Such a 
country presents the most alluring of all prospects to a young and 
laboring man; it gives him a freehold — it otFers to him weight and 
respectability in society; and above all, it presents to him a prospect 
of a permanent provision for his children. Sir, these are induce- 
ments which never were resisted, and never will be; and, were the 
whole extent of country filled with population up to the Rocky 
mountains, these inducements would carry that population forward 
to the shores of the Pacific ocean. Sir, it is in vain to talk; indi- 
viduals will seek their own good, and not any artificial aggregate of 
the national wealth. A young enterprising and hardy agriculturist, 
can conceive of nothing better to him than plentv of good, cheap 
land." 

Sir, with the reading of these extracts I leave the subject. The 
Senate will bear me witness that I am not accustomed to allude to 
local opinions, nor to compare, nor contrast different portions of the 
country. — I have often suffered things to pass which I might prop- 
erly enough have considered as deserving a remark, without any 
observation. But I have felt it my duty, on this occasion, to vindi- 
cate the state I represent from charges and imputations on her public 
character and conduct, which I know to be undeserved and unfoun- 
ded. If advanced elsewhere, they might be passed, perhaps, with- 
out notice. But whatever is said here, is supposed to be entitled 
to public regard, and to deserve public attention — it derives impor- 
tance and dignity from the place where it is uttered. As a true 
representative of the state which has sent me here, it is my duty, 
and a duty which I shall fulfil, to place her history and her conduct, 
her honor and her character, in their just and proper light, so often 
as I think an attack is made upon her, so respectable as to deserve 
to be repelled. 

Mr. W. concluded by moving the indefinite postponement of the 
resolution. 



Mr. Benton replied, 

Thursday, January 21. Mr. Chambers of Maryland expressed a hope, that the Senate 
■would postpone tlie discussion until Monday, as Mr. Webster, who had taken a part in it, 
had unavoidable engagements out of the Senate, and could not conveniently attend. 

HH 



374 

Mr. Ilayne saiil tliat some things liad fallen from the gentleman from Massachusetts wliich 
had oreateil sensations from wliicli he would desire at once to relieve himself. The gentleman 
had dis<-harged his weapon, and he (Mr. 11.) wi.shed for an opportunity to return the fire. 

Mr. Webster remarked that he was ready to receive it, and wished the di.scussion to pro- 
ceed. Mr. Hayne then took the floor, iind spoke at much length. After which Mr. Web- 
ster addressed the Senate as follows : — 



Mr. President, — When the mariner has been tossed, for many 
days, in thick weather, and on an unknown sea, he naturally avails 
himself of the first pause in the storm, the earliest glance of the 
sun, to take his latitude, and ascertain how far the elements have 
driven him from his true course. Let us imitate this prudence, and, 
before we float farther on the waves of this debate, refer to the point 
from which we departed, that we may at least be able to conjecture 
where we now are. I ask for the reading of the resolution. 

The Secretary read the resolution, as follows: 

" Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands be instructed to 
inquire and report the quantity of public lands remaining unsold 
within each state and territory, and whether it be expedient to limit, 
for a certain period, the sales of the public lands to such lands only 
as have heretofore been offered for sale, and are now subject to en- 
try at the minimum price. And, also, whether the office of Surveyor 
General, and some of the Land Offices, may not be abolished with- 
out detriment to the public interest; or whether it be expedient to 
adopt measures to hasten the sales, and extend more rapidly the sur- 
veys of the public lands." 

We have thus heard, sir, what the resolution is, which is actually 
before us for consideration; and it will readily occur to every one 
that it is almost the only sul)ject about which something has not 
been said in the speech, running through two days, by which the 
Senate has been now entertained by the gentleman from South Car- 
olina. Every topic in the wide range of our public affairs, whether 
past or present — Everything, general or local, whether belonging 
to national politics, or party politics, seems to have attracted more 
or less of the honorable member's attention, save only the resolution 
before the Senate. He has spoken of everything but the public 
lands. They, have escaped his notice. To that subject, in all his 
excursions, he has not paid even the cold respect of a passing glance. 

When this debate, sir, was to be resumed, on Thursday morning, 
it so happened that it would have been convenient for me to be else- 
where. The honorable member, however, did not incline to put off 
the discussion to another day. He had a shtit, he said, to return, 
and he wished to discharge it. That shot, sir, which it was kind 
thus to inform us was coming, that we might stand out of the way, 
or prepare ourselves to fall before it, and die with decency, has now 
been received. Under all advantages, and with expectation awak- 
ened by the tone which preceded it, it has been discharged, and 
has spent its force. It may become me to say no more of its effect, 
than that, if nobody is found, afler all, either killed or wounded by 
it, it is not the first time, in the history of human affairs, that the 
viffor and success of the war have not quite come up to the lofty and 
Bounding phrase of the manifesto. 



375 

The gentleman, sir, in declining to postpone the debate, told the 
Senate, with the emphasis of his hand upon his heart, that there was 
something rankling here, which he wished to relieve. [Mr. Hayne 
rose, and disclaimed having used the word rankling.^ It would not, 
Mr. President, be safe for the honorable member to appeal to those 
around him, upon the question, whether he did, in fact, make use of 
that word. But he may have been unconscious of it. At any rate, 
it is enough that he disclaims it. But still with or without the use of 
that particular word, he had yet something here, he said, of which he 
wished to rid himself by an immediate reply. In this respect, sir, I 
have a great advantage over the honorable gentleman. There is noth- 
ing here, sir, which gives me the slightest uneasiness; neither fear, nor 
anger, nor that, which is sometimes more troublesome than either — 
the consciousness of having been in the wrong. There is nothing, 
either originating her-e, or now received here by the gentleman's 
shot. Nothing original, for I had not the slightest feeling of disres- 
pect or unkindness towards the honorable member. Some passa- 
ges, it is true, had occurred since our acquaintance in this body, which 
I could have wished might have been otherwise; but I had used phi- 
losophy and forgotten them. When the honorable member rose, 
in his first speech, I paid him the respect of attentive listening; and 
when he sat down, though surprised, and I must say even astonished, 
at some of his opinions, nothing was farther from my intention than 
to commence any personal warfare: and through the whole of the 
few remarks I made in answer, I avoided, studiously and carefully, 
everything which I thought possible to be construed into disrespect. 
And, sir, while there is thus, nothing originating here, which I wished, 
at any time, or now wish to discharge, I must repeat, also, that noth- 
ing has been received here, which rankles, or in any way gives me 
annoyance. I will not accuse the honorable member of violating 
the rules of civilized war, — I will not say, that he poisoned his ar- 
rows. But whether his shafts were, or were not, dipped in that, 
which would have caused rankling, if they had reached, there was 
not, as it happened, quite strength enough in the bow to bring them to 
their mark. If he wishes now to gather up those shafts, he must 
look for them elsewhere; they will not be found fixed and quivering 
in the object, at which they were aimed. 

The honorable member complained that I had slept on his speech. 
I must have slept on it, or not slept at all. The moment the hono- 
rable member sat down, his friend from Missouri rose, and with 
much honeyed commendation of the speech, suggested that the im- 
pressions which it had produced, were too charming and delightful 
to be disturbed by other sentiments or other sounds, and proposed 
that the Senate should adjourn. Would it have been quite amiable, 
in me, sir, to interrupt this excellent good iceling? Must I not have 
been absolutely malicious, if I could have thrust myself forward, to 
destroy sensations, thus pleasing ? Was it not much better and kind- 
er, both to sleep upon them myself, and to allow others, also, the 
pleasure of sleeping upon them? But if it be meant, by sleeping 
upon his speech, that I took time to prepare a reply to it, it is quite 
a mistake; owing to other engagements, I could not employ even the 
interval, between the adjournment of the Senate, and its meeting 



376 

the next morning, in attention to the subject of this debate. Never- 
theless, sir, the mere matter ot" tact is undoubtedly true — I did sleep 
on the gentleman's speech; and slept soundly. And I slept equally 
well on his speech of yesterday, to which I am now replying. It is 
quite possible that in this respect, also, I possess some advantage 
over the honorable n)ember, attributable, doubtless, to a cooler tem- 
perament on my part; for, in truth, I slept upon his speeches remark- 
ably well. But the gentleman inquires, why he was made the object 
of such a reply .^ Why was he singled out.^ If an attack has been 
made on the East, he, he assures us, did not begin it — it was the 
gentleman from Missouri. Sir, I answered the gentleman's speech, 
because 1 happened to hear it: and because, also, I chose to give an 
answer to that speech, which, if unanswered, I thought most likely 
to produce injurious impressions. I did not stop to inquire who was 
the original drawer of the bill. I found a responsible endorser be- 
fore me, and it was my purpose to hold him liable, and to bring him 
to his just responsibility, without delay. But, sir, this interrogatory 
of the honorable member was only introductory to another. He 
proceeded to ask me, whether I had turned upon him, in this debate, 
from the consciousness that I should find an overmatch, if I ventur- 
ed ou a contest with his friend from Missouri. If, sir, the honorable 
memlier, ex 2:raixa modeslm, had chosen thus to defer to his friend, 
and to pay him a compliment, without intentional disparagement to 
others, it would have been quite according to the friendly courtesies 
of debate, and not at all ungrateful to my own feelings. I am not 
one of those, .sir, who esteem any tribute of regard, whether light and 
occasional, or more serious and deliberate, which may be bestowed 
on others, as so much unjustly withholden from themselves. But the 
tone and manner of the gentleman's question, forbid me that I thus 
interpret it. I am not at liberty to consider it as nothing more than 
a civility to his friend. It had an air of taunt and disparagement, 
somethino- of the loftiness of asserted superiority, which does not 
allow me to pass it over without notice. It was put as a question 
for me to answer, and so put, as if it were difhcult for me to answer, 
Whether I deemed the member from Missouri an overmatch for 
myself, in debate here. It seems to me, sir, that this is extraordi- 
nary language, and an extraordinary tone, for the discussions of 
this body. 

Matches and overmatches! Those terms are more applicable 
elsewhere than here, and fitter for other assemblies than this. — Sir, 
the gentleman seems to forget where, and what, we are. This is a 
Senate: a Senate of equals: of men of individual honor and personal 
character, and of absolute independence. We know no masters : we 
acknowledge no dictators. This is a hall for mutual consultation and 
discussion; not an arena for the exhil)ition of champions. I offer my- 
self, sir, as a match for no man; I throw the challenge of debate at 
no man's feet. But, then, sir, since the honorable member has put 
the question, in a manner that calls for an answer; I will give him an 
answer; and I tell him, that, holding myself to be the humblest of 
the members here, 1 yet know nothing in the arm of his friend from 
Missouri, either alone, or when aided by the arm of his friend fi-om 
South Carolina, tiiut need deter, even me, from espousing whatever 



. 377 

opinions I may choose to espouse, from debating whenever I may 
choose to debate, or from speaking whatever I may see fit to say, 
on the floor of the Senate. Sir, when uttered as matter of com- 
mendation or compliment, I should dissent from nothing which the 
honorable member might say of his friend. Still less do I put forth 
any pretensions of my own. But, when put to me as matter of taunt, 
I throw it back, and say to the gentleman that he could possibly say 
nothing less likely than such a comparison, to wound my pride of 
personal character. The anger of its tone rescued the remark from 
intentional irony, which, otherwise, probably, would have been its 
general acceptation. But, sir, if it be imagined that by this mutual 
quotation and commendation; if it be supposed that, by casting the 
characters of the drama, assigning to each his part: to one the attack; 
to another the cry of onset; or, if it be thought that by a loud and 
empty vaunt of anticipated victory, any laurels are to be won here; 
if it be imagined, especially, that any, or ail these things will shake 
any purpose of mine, I can tell the honorable member, once for all, 
that he is greatly mistaken, and that he is dealing with one of whose 
temper and character he has yet much to learn. Sir, I shall not al- 
low myself, on this occasion, I hope on no occasion, to be betrayed 
into any loss of temper; but if provoked, as I trust 1 never shall be, 
into crimination and recrimination, the honorable member may, per- 
haps, find, that, in that contest, there will be blows to take as well 
as blows to give; that others can state comparisons as significant, at 
least, as his own, and that his impunity may, possibly, demand of him 
whatever powers of taunt and sarcasm he may possess. I commend 
him to a prudent husbandry of his resources. 

But, sir, the Coalition! The Coalition! Ay, "the murdered 
Coalition!" The gentleman asks, if I were led or frighted into this 
debate by the spectre of the Coalition — " Was it the ghost of the 
murdered Coalition," he exclaims, " which haunted the member from 
Massachusetts; and which, like the ghost of Banquo, would never 
down.?" " The murdered Coalition!" Sir, this charge of a coalition, 
in reference to the late administration, is not original with the hon- 
orable member. It did not spring up in the Senate. Whether as a 
fact, as an argument, or as an embellishment, it is all borrowed. 
He adopts it, indeed, from a very low origin, and a still lower pre- 
sent condition. It is one of the thousand calumnies with which the 
press teemed, during an excited political canvass. It was a charge, 
of which there was not only no proof or probability, but which was, 
in itself, wholly impossible to be true. No man of common informa- 
tion ever believed a syllable of it. Yet it was of that class of false- 
hoods, which, by continued repetition, through all the organs of de- 
traction and abuse, are capable of misleading those who are already 
far misled, and of further fanning passion, already kindling into flame. 
Doubtless it served in its day, and, in greater or less degree, the 
end designed by it. Having done that, it has sunk into the general 
mass of stale and loathed calumnies. It is the very cast off slough of 
a polluted and shameless press. Inca[)able of further mischief, it lies 
in the sewer, lifeless and despised. It is not now, sir, in the power 
of the honorable member to give it dignity or decency, by attempting 
to elevate it, and to introduce it into the Senate. He cannot change 

48 HH*" 



378 

it from what it is, an object of general disgust and scorn. — On the 
contrary, the contact, if he choose to touch it, is more likely to drag 
him down, down, to the place where it lies itself 

But, sir, the honorable member was not, for other reasons, entirely 
happy in his allusion to the story of Banquo's murder, and Banquo's 
ghost. It was not, 1 think, the friends, but the enemies of tlie mur- 
dered Banquo, at whose bidding his spirit would not down. The 
honorable gentleman is fresh in his reading of the English classics, 
and can put me right if I am wrong; but, according to my poor 
recollection, it was at those who had begun with caresses, and ended 
with foul and treacherous murder, that the gory locks were shaken! 
The ghost of Banquo, like that of Hamlet, was an honest ghost. 
It disturbed no innocent man. It knew where its appearance would 
strike terror, and who would cry out, a ghost! It made itself visi- 
ble in the right quarter, and compelled the guilty, and the conscience 
smitten, and none others, to start, with, 

" Pr'ythee, see there! behold! — look! lo 
If I stand here, I saw him!" 

THEIR eyeballs were seared (was it not so, sir?) who had thought to 
shield themselves, by concealing their own hand, and laying the im- 
putation of the crime on a low and hireling agency in wickedness; 
who had vainly attempted to stitle the workings of their own cow- 
ard consciences, by ejaculating, through white lips and chattering 
teeth, " Thou canst not say I did it!" I have misread the great poet 
if those who had no way partaken in the deed of the death, either 
found that they were, or feared that they should be, pushed trom their 
stools by the ghost of the slain, or exclaimed, to a spectre created 
by their own fears, and their own remorse, " Avaunt! and quit our 
sight!" 

There is another particular, sir, in which the honorable member's 
quick perception of resemblances might, I should thmk, have seen 
something in the story of Banquo, making it not altogether a subject 
of the most pleasant contemplation. Those who murdered Banquo, 
what did they win by it.' — Substantial good.'' Permanent power .^ 
Or disappointment, rather, and sore mortitication; — dust and ash- 
es — the common fate of vaulting ambition, overleaping itself? Did 
not evenhanded justice ere long commend the poisoned chalice to 
their own lips? Did they not soon tind that for another the) had 
*' filed their mind?" that their ambition, though apparently for the 
moment succesful, had but put a barren sceptre in their grasp? — 
Ay, sir, 

" A barren sceptre in their gripe, 

Thence to be wrenched by an unlineal hand. 

No son oftheir''s succeeding." 

Sir, I need pursue the allusion no farther. I leave the honora- 
ble gentleman to run it out at his leisure, and to derive from it all 
the gratification it is calculated to administer. If he rinds himself 
pleased with the associations, and prepared to be quite satisfied, 
though the parallel should be entirely completed, I had almost said, 
I am satisfied also — but that I shall think of Yes, sir, 1 will think 
of that. 



379- 

In the course of my observations the other day, Mr. President, I 
paid a passing tribute of respect to a very worthy man, Mr. Dane, of 
Massachusetts. It so happened that he drew the ordinance of 1787, 
for the government of the northwestern territory. A man of so 
much ability, and so little pretence; of so great a capacity to do good, 
and so unmixed a disposition to do it for its own sake; a gentleman 
who had acted an important part, forty years ago, in a measure the 
influence of which is still deeply felt in the very matter which was 
the subject of debate, might, I thought, receive from me a commen- 
datory recognition. 

But the honorable member was inclined to be facetious on the sub- 
ject. He was rather disposed to make it matter of ridicule, that I 
had introduced into the debate the name of one Nathan Dane, of whom 
he assures us he had never before heard. Sir, if the honorable 
member had never before heard of Mr. Dane, I am sorry for it. It 
shows him less acquainted with the public men of the country, than 
I had supposed. Let me tell him, however, that a sneer from him, 
at the mention of the name of Mr. Dane, is in bad taste. It may 
well be a high mark of ambition, sir, either with the honorable gen- 
tleman or myself, to accomplish as much to make our names known 
to advantage, and remembered with gratitude, as Mr. Dane has ac- 
complished. But the truth is, sir, I suspect, that Mr. Dane lives a 
little too far north. He is of Massachusetts, and too near the north 
star to be reached by the honorable gentleman's telescope. If his 
sphere had happened to range south of Mason and Dixon's hne, he 
might, probably, have come within the scope of his vision! 

I spoke, sir, of the ordinance of 1787, which prohibited slavery, 
in all future times, northwest of the Ohio, as a measure of great wis- 
dom and foresight; and one which had been attended with highly bene- 
ficial and permanent consequences. I supposed, that on this point, 
no two gentlemen in the Senate could entertain difierent opinions. 
But, the simple expression of this sentiment has led the gentleman, 
not only into a labored defence of slavery, in the abstract, and on 
principle, but, also, into a warm accusation against me, as having 
attacked the system of domestic slavery now existing in the southern 
states. For all this, there was not the slightest foundation, in any 
thing said or intimated by me. I did not utter a single word which 
any ingenuity could torture into an attack on the slavery of the South. 
I said, only, that it was highly wise and useful in legislating for the 
northwestern country, while it was yet a wildt^rness, to prohibit the 
introduction of slaves: and added, that I presumed, in the neighbour- 
ing state of Kentucky, there was no reflecting and intelligent gen- 
tleman, who would doubt, that if the same prohibition had been ex- 
tended, at the same early period, over that commonwealth, her 
strength and population would, at this day, have been far greater 
than they are. — If these opinions be thought doubtful, tliey are, nev- 
ertheless, I trust, neither extraordinary nor disrespectful. They 
attack nobody and menace nobodv. And yet, sir, the gentleman's 
optics have discovered, even in the mere expression of this senti- 
ment, what he calls the very spirit of the Missouri question! He 
represents me as making an onset on the whole Soutii, and mani- 
festing a spirit which would intefere witii, and disturb, their domes- 



380 

tic condition! Sir, this injustice no otherwise surprises me, than as 
it is committed here, and committed without the sHghtest pretence 
of ground for it. I say it only surprises me, as being done here; 
for I know full well, that it is, and has been, the settled policy of 
some persons in the South, for years, to represent the people of the 
North as disposed to intcfere with them, in their own exchisive and 
peculiar concerns. This is a delicate and sensitive point, in southern 
feel'.ng; and of late years it has always been touched, and generally 
with effect, whenever the object has been to unite the whole South 
against northern men, or northern measures. This feeling, always 
carefully kept alive, and maintained at too intense a heat to admit 
discrimination or reflection, is a lever of great power in our political 
machine. It moves vast bodies, and gives to them one and the same 
direction. — But it is without all adequate cause; and the suspicion 
which exists, wholly groundless. — There is not, and never has been, 
a disposition in the North to intefere with these interests of the South. 
Such interference has never been supposed to be within the power 
of government; nor has it been, in any way, attempted. The slavery 
of the South has always been regarded as a matter of domestic poli- 
cy, left with the states themselves, and with which the federal gov- 
ernment had nothing to do. Certainly, sir, I am, and ever have 
been of that opinion. The gentleman, indeed, argues that slavery, 
in the abstract, is no evil. Most assuredly, 1 need not say I differ 
with him, altogether and most widely, on that point. I regard do- 
mestic slavery as one of the greatest of evils, both moral and polit- 
ical. But though it be a malady, and whether it be curable, 
and if so, by what means; or, on the other hand, whether it be the 
vulniis immedicabile of the social system, I leave it to those whose 
right and duty it is to inquire and to decide. And this I believe, sir, 
is, and uniformly has been, the sentiment of the North. Let us look 
a little at the history of this matter. 

When the present constitution was submitted for the ratification 
of the people, there were those who imagined that the powers of the 
government which it proposed to establish, might, perhaps, in some 
possible mode, be exerted in measures tending to the abolition of 
slavery. This suggestion would of course attract much attention in 
the southern conventions. In that of Virginia, Governor Randolph 
said: 

" I hope there is none here, who, considering the subject in the 
calm light of philosophy, will make an objection dishonorable to Vir- 
ginia — that at the moment they are securing the rights of their 
citizens, an objection is started, that there is a spark of hope that those 
unfortunate men now held in bondage, may, by the operation of the 
general government, be made free." 

At the very first Congress, petitions on the subject were presented, 
if I mistake not, from different states. The Pennsylvania society for 
promoting the abolition of slavery took a lead, ancl laid before Con- 
gress a memorial, praving Congress to promote the aliolition by such 
powers as it possessed. — This memorial was referred, in the House of 
Representatives, to a select committee, consisting of Mr. Foster, of 
New Hampshire, Mr. Gerry, of INIassachusetts, Mr. Huntington, of 
Connecticut, Mr. Lawrence, of New York, Mr. Dickinson, of New 



381 

Jersey, Mr. Hartley of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Parker, of Virginia, — 
all of them, sir, as you will observe, northern men, but the last. 
This committee, made a report, which was committed to a committee 
of the whole House, and there considered and discussed on several 
days; and being amended, although without material alteration, it 
was made to express three distinct propositions, on the subject of 
slavery and the Slave Trade. — First, in the words of the con- 
stitution; that Congress could not, prior to the year 1808, prohibit the 
migration or importation of such persons as any of the states, then 
existing, should think proper to admit. Second, that Congress had 
authority to restrain the citizens of the United States from carrying on 
tlie African slave trade, for the purpose of supplying foreign coun- 
tries. On this proposition, our early laws against those who engage 
in that traffic are founded. The third proposition, and that which 
bears on the present question, was expressed in the following terms: 

" Resolved, That Congress have no authority to interfere in the 
emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them in any of the 
states; it remaining with the several states alone to provide rules and 
regulations therein, which humanity and true policy may require." 

This resolution received the sanction of the House of Represen- 
tatives so early as March, 1790. And now, sir, the honorable 
member will allow me to remind him, that not only were the select 
committee who reported the resolution, with a single exception, all 
northern men, but also that of the members then composing the 
House of Representatives, a large majority, I believe nearly two- 
thirds, were northern men also. 

The House agreed to insert these resolutions in its journal; and 
from that day to this, it has never been maintained or contended, 
that Congress had any authority to regulate, or interfere with, the 
condition of slaves in the several states. No northern gentleman, 
to my knowledge, has moved any such question in either House of 
Congress. 

The fears of the South, whatever fears they might have entertain- 
ed, were allayed and quieted by this early decision; and so remain- 
ed, till they were excited afresh, without cause, but for collateral 
and indirect purposes. When it become necessary, or was thought 
so, by some political persons, to find an unvarying ground for the 
exclusion of northern men from confidence and from lead in the 
art'airs of the Republic, then, and not till then, the cry was raised, 
and the feeling industriously excited, that the influence of north- 
ern men in the public councils would endanger the relation of 
master and slave. For myself, I claim no other merit, than that 
this gross and enormous injustice towards the whole North, has not 
wrought upon me to change my opinions, or my political conduct. 
T hope I am above violating my princijjes, even under the smart of 
injury and false imputations. Unjust suspicions and undeserved re- 
proach, whatever pain I may experience from them, will not induce 
me, I trust, nevertheless, to overstep the limits of constitutional 
duty, or to encroach on the rights of others. The domestic slavery 
of the South I leave where I find it — in the hands of their own gov- 
ernments. It is their affair, not mine. Nor do I complain of the 
peculiar effect which the magnitude of that population has had in 



382 

the distribution of power under this federal government. We know, 
sir, that the representation of tlie states in the other House is not 
equal. We know that great advantage, in that respect, is enjoyed 
by the slave-holding states ; and we know, too, that the intended 
equivalent for that advantage, that is to say, the imposition of direct 
taxes in the same ratio, has become merely nominal; the habit of the 
government being almost invariably to collect its revenue from other 
sources and in other modes. Nevertheless, I do not complain: nor 
would I countenance any movement to alter this arrangement of 
representation. It is the original bargain, the compact — let it stand; 
let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. The union itself is too 
full of benefit to be hazarded in propositions for changing its origi- 
nal basis. I go for the constitutipn as it is, and for the union as it is. 
But I am resolved not to submit, in silence, to accusations, either 
against myself individually, or against the North, wholly unfounded 
and unjust; accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the 
constitutional compact, and to extend the power of the government 
over the internal laws and domestic condition of the states. All 
such accusations, wherever and whenever made, all insinuations of 
the existence of any such f)urposes, I know, and feel to be groun- 
dless and injurious. And we must confide in southern gentlemen 
themselves; we must trust to those whose integrity of heart and 
magnanimity of feeling will lead them to a desire to maintain and 
disseminate truth, and who possess the means of its diffusion with 
the southern public; we must leave it to them to disabuse that public 
of its prejudices. But, in the meantime, for my own part, I shall 
continue to act justly, whether those towards whom justice is ex- 
ercised receive it with candor or with contumely. 

Having had occasion to recur to the ordinance of 1787, in order to 
defend myself against the inferences which the honorable member 
has chosen to draw from my former observations on that subject, I 
am not willing now entirely to take leave of it without another re- 
mark. It need hardly be said, that that paper expresses just sen- 
timents on the great subject of civil and religious liberty. Such 
sentiments were common, and abound in all our state papers of that 
day. But this ordinance did that which was not so common, and 
which is not, even now, universal; that is, it set forth and declared, 
as a liigli and binding dutij of <];overmncnt ifsclf, to encourage schools, 
and advance the means of education; on the plain reason, that re- 
ligion, morality, and knowledge, are necessary to good government, 
and to the hapjtiness of mankind. One observation further. The 
important provision incorporated into the constitution of the United 
States, and several of those of the states, and recently, as we have 
seen, adopted into the reformed constitution of Virginia, restraining 
legislative power, in questions of private right, and from impairing 
the obligation of contracts, is first introduced and established, as far 
as I am informed, as matter of express written constitutional law, 
in this ordinance of 1787. And I must add, also, in regard to the 
author of the ordinance, who has not had the happiness to attract 
the gentleman's notice, heretofore, nor to avoid his sarcasm now, that 
he was chairman of that select committee of the old Congress, 
whose report first expressed the strong sense of that body, that the 



383 

old confederation was not adequate to the exigencies of the country, 
and recommending to the states to send delegates to the convention 
which formed the present constitution. — (Note 1.) 

An attempt has been made to transfer, from the north to the south, 
the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the northwestern terri- 
tory. The journal, without argument or comment, refutes such at- 
tempt. The cession by Virginia was made, March, 1784. On the 
19th of April following, a committee, consisting of Messrs. Jeffer- 
son, Chase, and Howell, reported a plan for a temporary govern- 
ment of the territory, in which was this article: " that, after the 
year 1800, there shall be neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude 
in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, 
whereof the party shall have been convicted." Mr. Spaight, of 
North Carolina, moved to strike out this paragraph. The question 
was put, according to the form then practised: " shall these words 
stand, as part of the plan,"&c. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsyl- 
vania — seven states voted in the affirmative. Maryland, Virginia, 
and South Carolina, in the negative. North Carolina was divided. 
As the consent of nine states was necessary, the words could not 
stand, and were struck out accordingly. Mr. Jefferson voted for 
the clause, but was overruled by his colleagues. 

In March of the next year, (1785,) Mr. King, of Massachusetts, 
seconded by Mr. Ellery, of Rhode Island, proposed the formerly re- 
jected article, with this addition — And that this regulalion shall be an 
article of compact, and retnain a fundamental principle of the constitntiom 
between the thirteen oris;inal states, and each of the states described in the 
Resolve,'''' &c. On this clause, which provided the adequate and 
thorough security, the eight northern states at that time voted af- 
firmatively, and the four southern states negatively. The votes of 
nine states were not yet obtained, and thus, the provision was again 
rejected by the southern states. The perseverance of the North 
held out, and two years afterwards the object was attained. It is 
no derogation from the credit, whatever that may be, of drawing 
the ordinance, that its principles had before been prepared and dis- 
cussed, in the form of resolutions. If one should reason in that 
way, what would become of the distinguished honor of the author 
of the Declaration of Independence.^ There is not a sentiment in 
that paper which had not been voted and resolved in the assemblies, 
and other popular bodies in the country, over and over again. 

But the honorable member has now found out that this gentleman 
(Mr. Dane) was a member of the Hartford Convention. However 
uninformed the honorable member may be of characters and occur- 
rences at the North, it would seem that he has at his elbow, on this 
occasion, some high-minded and lofty spirit, some magnanimous and 
true-hearted monitor, possessing the means of local knowledge, and 
ready to supply the honorable member with everything, down even 
to forgotten and moth-eaten two-penny pamphlets, which may 
be used to the disadvantage of his own country. But, as to the 
Hartford Convention, sir, allow me to say, that the proceedings of 
that body seem now to be less read and studied in New England 
than farther south. They appear to be looked to, not in New Kng- 



384 

land, but elsewhere, for the purpose of seeing how far they may 
serve as a precedent. But they will not answer the purpose — they 
are quite too tame. The latitude in which they originated was too 
cold. Other conventions, of more recent existence, have gone a 
whole bar's length beyond it. The learned doctors of Colleton and 
Abbeville have pushed their commentaries on the Hartford collect 
so far that the original text-writers are thrown entirely into the shade 
I have nothing to do, sir, with the Hartford Convention. Its jour- 
nal, which the gentleman has quoted, I never read. So far as the 
honorable member may discover in its proceedings a spirit, in any 
degree resembling that which was avowed and justified in those 
other conventions to which T have alluded, or so far as those proceed- 
ings can be shown to be disloyal to the constitution, or tending to 
disunion, so far I shall be as ready as any one to bestow on them 
reprehension and censure. 

Having dwelt long on this convention, and other occurrences of 
that day, in the hope, probably, (which will not be gratified) that I 
should leave the course of this debate to follow him, at length, in 
those excursions, the honorable member returned, and attempted 
another object. He referred to a speech of mine in the other House, 
the same which I had occasion to allude to myself the other day; 
and has quoted a passage or two from it, with a bold, though uneasy 
and laboring air of confidence, as if he had detected in me an incon- 
sistency. Judging from the gentleman's manner, a stranger to the 
course of the debate, and to the point in discussion, would have 
imagined, from so triumphant a tone, that the honorable member was 
about to overwhelm me with a manifest contradiction. Any one 
who heard him, and who had not heard what I had, in fact, previ- 
ously said, must have thought me routed and discomfited, as the 
gentleman had promised. Sir, a breath blows all this triumph away. 
There is not the slightest difference in the sentiments of my remarks 
on the two occasions. What I said here on Wednesday, is in exact 
accordance with the opinion expressed by me in the other House in 
1825. Though the gentleman had the metaphysics of Hudibras — 
though he were able 

" To sever and divide 

A hair Hwixi north and northwest side,^' 

he yet could not insert his metaphysical scissors between the fair 
reading of my remarks in 1825, and what I said here last week. 
There is not onlj no contradiction, no diflerence, but, in truth, too 
exact a similarity, both in thought and language, to be entirely in 
just taste. I had myself quoted the same speech; had recurred to 
it, and spoke with it open before me; and much of what I said was 
little more than a repetition from it. In order to make finishing work 
with this alleged contradiction, permit me to recur to the origin of 
this debate, and review its course. This seems expedient, and may 
be done as well now as at any time. 

Well, then, its history is this: The honorable member from Con- 
necticut moved a resolution, which constitutes the first branch of 
that which is now before us; that is to say, a resolution, instructing 
the committee on public lands to inquire into the expediency of 
limiting, for a certain period, the sales of the public lands, to such 



38b 

as have heretofore been offered for sale; and whether sundry offices 
connected with the sales of the lands, might not be abolished, with- 
out detriment to the public service. 

In the progress of the discussion which arose on this resolution, 
an honorable member from jNew Hampshire moved to amend the 
resolution, so as entirely to reverse its object; that is, to strike it aU 
out, and insert a direction to the conunittee to inquire into the ex- 
pediency of adopting measures to hasten the sales, and extend more 
rapidly the surveys of the lands. 

The honorable member from Maine, [Mr. Sprague,] suggested 
that both those propositions might well enough go for consideration 
to the committee; and in this state of the question, the member from 
South Carolina addressed the Senate in his first speech. He rose, 
he .said, to give us his own free thoughts on the public lands. I saw 
him rise, with pleasure, and listened with expectation, though before 
he concluded, I was filled with surprise. Certainly, I was never 
more surprised, than to find him following up, to the extent he did, 
the sentiments and opinions, which the gentleman from Missouri 
had put forth, and which it is known he has long entertained. 

I need not repeat at large the general topics of the honorable 
gentleman's speech. — When he said yesterday, that he did not at- 
tack the eastern states, he certainly must have forgotten, not only 
particular remarks, but the whole drift and tenor of his speech; un- 
less he means, by not attacking, that he did not commence hostili- 
ties, — but that another had preceded him in the attack. He, in the 
first place, disapproved of the whole course of the government, for 
forty years, in regard to its dispositions of the public land; and then 
turning northward and eastward, and fancying he had found a cause 
for alleged narrowness and niggardliness in the " accursed policy" 
of the tariff, to which he represented the people of New England as 
wedded, he went on, for a full hour, with remarks, the whole scope 
of which was to exhibit the results of this policy, in feelings and in 
measures unfavorable to the west. I thought his opinions unfoun- 
ded and erroneous, as to the general course of the government, and 
ventured to reply to them. 

The gentleman had remarked on the analogy of other cases, and 
quoted the conduct of European governments towards their own 
subjects, settling on this continent, as in point, to show, that we had 
been harsh and rigid in selling, when we should have given the pub- 
lic lands to settlers, without price. I thought the honorable mem- 
ber had suffered his judgment to be betrayed by a false analogy; 
that he was struck with an appearance of resemblance, where there 
was no real similitude. I think so still. The first settlers of North 
America were enterprising spirits, engaged in private adventure, or 
fleeing from tyranny at home. When arrived here, they were for- 
gotten by the mother country, or remembered only to be oppressed. 
Carried away again by the appearance of analogy, or struck with 
the eloquence of the passage, the honorable member yesterday ob- 
served, that the conduct of government towards the western emi- 
grants, or my representation of it, brought to his mind a celebrated 
speech in the British parliament. It was, sir, the speech of Col. 
Barre. On the question of the stamp act, or tea tax, 1 forget which, 
49 II 



886 

Col. Barre had heard a membor on the treasury bench arjrne, that 
the people of the United States, being- British colonists, phinted by 
the maternal care, nourished by the indulgence, and protected by 
the arms of England, would not grudge their mite to relieve the 
mother country from the heavy burden under which she groaned. 
The language of Col. Barre, in reply to this, was— They planted by 
your care? Your oppression planted them in America. They fled 
from your tyranny, and grew by your neglect of them. So soon as 
you began to care for them, you showed your care by sending per- 
sons to spy out their liberties, misrepresent their character, prey 
upon them and eat out their substance. 

And how does the honorable gentleman mean to maintain, that 
language like this is applicable to the conduct of the government of 
the United States towards the western emigrants, or to any repre- 
sentation given l)y me of that conduct? Were the settlers in the 
West driven thither by our oppression? Have they flourished only 
by our neglect of them? Has the government done nothing but to 
prey upon them, and eat out their substance? Sir, this fervid elo- 
quence of the British speaker, just, when and where it was uttered, 
and fit to remain an exercise for the schools, is not a little out of 
place, when it is brought thence to be applied here, to the conduct 
of our own country towards her own citizens. From America to 
England, it may be true; from Americans to their own government 
it would be strange language. Let us leave it, to be recited and 
declaimed by our boys, against a foreign nation; not introduce it 
here, to recite and declaim ourselves against our own. 

But I come to the point of the alleged contradiction. In my re- 
marks on Wednesday, I contended that we could not give away 
gratuitously all the public lands; that we held them in trust; that the 
government had solemnity pledged itself to dispose of them as a 
common fund for the common benefit, and to sell and settle them as 
its discretion should dictate. Now, sir, what contradiction does the 
gentleman find to this sentiment, in the speech of 1 825 ? He quotes 
me as having then said, that we ought not to hug these lands as a 
very great treasure. Very well, sir, supposing me to be accurately 
reported, in that expression, what is the contradiction ? I have not 
now said, that we should hug these lands as a favorite source of pe- 
cuniary income. No such thing. It is not my view. What I have 
said, and what I do say, is, that they are a common fund — to be 
disposed of for the common benefit — to be sold at low prices for the 
accommodation of settlers, keeping the object of settling the lands as 
much in view, as that of raising money from them. This I say 
now, and this I have always said. Is this hugging them as a favor- 
ite treasure? Is there no difference between hugging and hoarding 
this fund, on the one hand, as a great treasure, and on the other, of 
disposing of it at low prices, placing the proceeds in the general 
treasury of the union? ]VIy opinion is, that as much is to be made 
of the land, as fairly and reasonably may be, selling it all the while 
at such rates as to give the fullest effect to settlement. — This is not 
giving it all away to the states, as the gentleman would propose; nor 
is it hugging the fund closely and tenaciously, as a favorite treasure; 
but it is, in my judgment, a just and wise policy, perfectly according 



387 

with all the various duties which rest on government. So much for 
my contradiction. And what is it.^ Where is the ground of the 
gentleman's triumph ^ What inconsistency in word or doctrine, has 
he been able to detect.'' Sir, if this be a sample of that discomfiture, 
with which the honorable gentleman threatened me, commend me to 
the word discoinjilnre for the rest of my life. 

But, after all, this is not the point of the debate; and I must now 
bring the gentleman back to what is the point. 

The real question between me and him is, has the doctrine been 
advanced at the South or the East, that the population of the West 
should be retarded, or at least need not be hastened, on account of 
its effect to drain off the people from the Atlantic states.'' Is this doc- 
trine, as has been alleged, of eastern origin? That is the question. 
Has the gentleman found anything, by which he can make good his 
accusation? I submit to the Senate, that he has entirely failed; and 
as far as this debate has shown, the only person who has advanced 
such sentiments, is a gentleman from South Carolina, and a friend 
to the honorable member himself. — The honorable gentleman has 
given no answer to this; there is none which can be given. The 
simple fact, while it requires no comment to enforce it, defies all ar- 
gument to refute it. I could refer to the speeches of another south- 
ern gentleman, in years before, of the same general character, and 
to the same effect, as that which has been quoted; but I will not con- 
sume the time of the Senate by the reading of them. 

So then, sir. New England is guiltless of the policy of retarding 
western population, and of all envy and jealousy of the growth of the 
new states. Whatever there be of that policy in the country, no part 
of it isher's. If it has a local habitation, the honorable member has 
probably seen, by this time, where to look for it; and if it now has re- 
ceived a name, he has himself christened it. 

We approach, at length, sir, to a more important part of the hon- 
orable gentleman's observations. Since it does not accord with my 
views of justice and policy to give away the public lands altogether, 
as mere matter of gratuity, I am asked by the honorable gentleman 
on what ground it is, that I consent to vote them away in particu- 
lar instances? How, he inquires, do I reconcile with these profess- 
ed sentiments, my support of measures appropriating portions of the 
lands to particular roads, particular canals, particular rivers, and par- 
ticular institutions of education in the West? This leads, sir, to the 
real and wide difference, in political opinion, between the honorable 
gentleman and myself On my part, I look upon all these objects, 
as connected with the common good, faii:ly embraced in its object 
and its terms; he, on the contrary, deems them all, if good at all, 
only local good. This is our difference. The interrogatory which 
he proceeded to put, at once explains this difference. " What inter- 
est," asks he, " has South Carolina in a canal in Ohio?" Sir, this 
very question is full of significance. It developes the gentleman's 
whole political system; and its answer expounds mine. Here we dif- 
fer. I look upon a road over the Alleghany, a canal round the falls 
of the Ohio, or a canal or railway from the Atlantic to the western 
waters, as being an object large and extensive enough to be fairly 
said to be for the common benefit. The gentleman thinks otherwise. 



388 

and this is the key to open his construction of the powers of the gov 
eminent. He may well ask what interest has South Carolina in a 
canal in Ohio? On his system, it is true, she has no interest. On 
that system, Ohio and Carolina are diflerent governments, and dif- 
ferent countries: connected here, it is true, by some slight and ill de- 
fined bond of union, but, in all main respects, separate and diverse. 
On that system, Carolina has no more interest in a canal in Ohio than 
in Mexico. The gentleman, therefore, only follows out his own prin- 
ciples; he does no more than arrive at the natural conclusions of his 
own doctrines; he only announces the true results of that creed, 
which he has adopted himself, and would persuade others to adopt, 
when he thus declares that South Carolina has no interest in a pub- 
lic work in Ohio. Sir, we narrow-minded people of New England 
do not reason thus. Our notion of things is entirely different. We 
look upon the states not as separated, but as united. We love to 
dwell on that union, and on the mutual happiness which it has so 
much promoted, and the common renown which it has so greatly con- 
tributed to acquire. In our contemplation, Carolina and Ohio are 
parts of the same country; states, united under the same general gov- 
ernment, having interests, common, associated, intermingled. In 
whatever is within the proper sphere of the constitutional power of 
this government, we look upon the states as one. We do not impose 
geographical limits to our patriotic feeling or regard; we do not follow 
rivers and mountains, and lines of latitude, to find boundaries, be- 
yond which public improvements do not benefit us. VS^e who come 
here, as agents and representatives of these narrow-minded and sel- 
fish men of New England, consider ourselves as bound to regard, 
with an equal eye, the good of the whole, in whatever is within our 
power of legislation. Sir, if a rail road or canal, beginning in South 
Carolina and ending in South Carolina, appeared to me to be of na- 
tional importance and national magnitude, believing, as I do, that the 
power of government extends to the encouragement of works of that 
description, if I were to stand up here, and ask, what interest has 
Massachusetts in a rail road in South Carolina, I should not be will- 
ing to face my constituents. These same narrow-minded men would 
tell me, that they had sent me to act for the whole country, and that 
one who possessed too little comprehension, either of intellect or 
feeling; one who was not large enough, both in mind and in heart, 
to embrace the whole, was not fit to be entrusted with the interest of 
any part. Sir, I do not desire to enlarge the powers of the govern- 
ment, by unjustifiable construction; nor to exercise any not within 
a fair interpretation. But when it is believed that a power does ex- 
ist, then it is, in my judgment, to be exercised for the general bene- 
fit of the whole. So far as respects the exercise of such a power, 
the states are one. It was the very object of the constitution to cre- 
ate unity of interests to the extent of the powers of the general gov- 
ernment. In war and peace we are one; in commerce, one; because 
the authority of the general government reaches to war and peace, 
and to the regulation of commerce. I have never seen any more 
difficulty in erecting light houses on the lakes, than on the ocean; 
in improving the harbours of inland seas, than if they were within 
the ebb and flow of the tide; or of removing obstructions in the vast 



389 

streams of the West, more than in any work to facilitate commerce 
on the Atlantic coast. If there be any power for one, there is pow- 
er also for the other; and they are all and equally for the common 
good of the country. 

There are other objects, apparently more local, or the benefit of 
which is less general, towards which, nevertheless, I have concurred 
with others, to give aid, by donations of land. It is proposed to con- 
struct a road, in or through one of the new states, in which this gov- 
ernment possesses large quantities of land. Have the United States 
no right, or, as a great and untaxed proprietor, are they under no ob- 
ligation, to contribute to an object thus calculated to promote the 
common good of all the proprietors, themselves included.' And even 
with respect to education, which is tlie extreme case, let the question 
be considered. — In the first place, as we have seen, it was made mat- 
ter of compact with these states, that they should do their part to 
promote education. In the next place, our whole system of land 
laws proceeds on the idea that education is for the common good ; be- 
cause, in every division, a certain portion is uniformly reserved and 
appropriated for the use of schools. And, finally, have not these 
new states singularly strong claims, founded on the ground already 
stated, that the government is a great untaxed proprietor, in the 
ownership of the soil.' It is a consideration of great importance, 
that, probably, there is in no part of the country, or of the world, so 
great call for the means of education, as in those new states; owing 
to the vast numbers of persons within those ages in which education 
and instruction are usually received, if received at all. This is the 
natural consequence of recency of settlement and rapid increase. 
The census of these states shows how great a proportion of the whole 
population occupies the classes between infancy and manhood. These 
are the wide fields, and here is the deep and quick soil for the seeds 
of knowledge and virtue; and this is the favored season, the very 
spring-time for sowing them. Let them be disseminated without 
stint. Let them be scattered with a bountiful, broad cast. What- 
ever the government can fairly do towards these objects, in my 
opinion, ought to be done. 

These, sir, are the grounds succinctly stated, on which my votes 
for grants of lands for particular objects rest; while I maintain, at 
the same time, tiuit it is all a common fund, for the common benefit. 
And reasons like these, I presume, have influenced the votes of other 
gentlemen from New England. Those who have a dilferent view 
of the powers of the government, of course, come to dilferent con- 
clusions, on these, as on other questions. I observed, when speak- 
ing on this subject before, that, if we looked to any measure, wheth- 
er for a road, a canal, or anything else, intended for the improvement 
of the West, it would be found, that, il" the New England ayes were 
struck out of the lists of votes, the southern noes would always have 
rejected the measure. The truth of this has not been denied, and 
cannot be denied. In stating this, I thought it just to ascribe it to 
the constitutional scruples of the South, rather than to any other 
less favorable or less charitable cause. T?ut no sooner had I done 
this, than the honorable gentleman asks if I reproach him and his 
friends with their constitutional .scruples. — Sir, I reproach nobody — 

II* 



390 

I stated a fact, and gave the most respectful reason for it that occur- 
red to me. The gentleman cannot deny the fact; he may, if he 
choose, disclaim the reason. It is not long since I had occasion, in 
presenting a petition from his own state, to account for its being 
entrusted to my hands, by saying, that the constitutional opinions of 
the gentleman and his worthy colleague, prevented them from sup- 
porting it. Sir, did I state this as matter of reproach? Far from 
it Did I attempt to find any other cause than an honest one, for 
these scruples.? Sir, I did not. It did not become me to doubt or 
to insinuate that the gentleman had either changed his sentiments, 
or that he had made up a set of constitutional opinions, accommoda- 
ted to any particular combination of political occurrences. Had I 
done so, I should have felt, that, while I was entitled to little credit 
in thus questioning other people's motives, I justified the whole 
world in suspecting my own. But how has the gentleman returned 
this respect for others' opinions.' His own candor and justice, how 
have they been exhibited towards the motives of others, while he has 
been at so much pains to maintain, what nobody has disputed, the 
purity of his own? Why, sir, he has asked when, and how, and why. 
New England votes were found going for measures favorable to the 
West ? He has demanded to be informed whether all this did not begin 
in IS-'o, and while the election of president teas still pending'^! Sir, to 
these questions retort would be justified; and it is both cogent, and 
at hand. Nevertheless, I will answer the inquiry, not by retort, but 
by facts. I will tell the gentleman when, and how, and ivhy, New Eng- 
land has supported measures favorable to the West. I have already 
referred to the early history of the government — to the first acqui- 
siti n of the lands — to the original laws for disposing of them, and for 
governing the territories where they lie; and have shown the influ- 
ence of New England men and New England principles in all these 
leading measures. I should not be pardoned were I to go over that 
ground again. Coming to more recent times, and to measures of a 
less general character, I have endeavoured to prove that everything 
of this kind, designed for western improvement, has depended on 
the votes of New England; all this is true beyond the power of con- 
tradiction. 

And now, sir, there are two measures to which I will refer, not so 
ancient as to belong to the early history of the public lands, and not 
so recent as to be on this side of the period when the gentleman 
charitably imagines a new direction may have been given to New 
England feeling and New England votes. — These measures, and the 
New England votes in support of them, may be taken as samples 
and specimens of all the rest. 

In 1820, (observe, Mr. President, in 1820,) the people of the 
West besought Congress for a reduction in the price of lands. In 
favor of that reduction, New England, with a delegation of forty 
members in the other House, gave thirty-three votes, and one only 
against it.— The four southern states, with fifty members, gave 
thirty -two votes for it, and seven against it. Again, in 1821, (ob- 
serve, again, sir, the time,) the law passed for the relief of the pur- 
chasers of the public lands. This was a measure of vital importance 
to the West, and more especially to the Southwest. It authorized 



391 

the relinquishment of contracts for lands, which had been entered 
into at high prices, and a reduction in other cases of not less than 
37i per cent, on the purchase money. Many millions of dollars — 
six or seven I believe, at least, probably much more — were relinquish- 
ed by this law. On this bill, New England, with her forty members, 
gave more affirmative votes than the four southern states, with their 
fifty-two or three members. 

These two are far the most important general measures respecting 
the public lands, which have been adopted within the last twenty 
years. They took place in 1820 and 1821. That is the time tvhen. 
As to the manner how, the gentleman already sees that, it was by 
voting, in solid column, for the required relief: and lastly, as to the 
cause n'/tj/, I tell the gentleman, it was because the members from 
New England thought the measures just and salutary; because 
they entertained towards the West, neither envy, hatred, or malice; 
because they deemed it becoming them, as just and enlightened pub- 
lic men, to meet the exigency which had arisen in the West, with the 
appropriate measure of relief; because they felt it due to their own 
characters, and the characters of their New England predecessors 
in this government, to act towards the new states in the spirit 
of a liberal, patronizing, magnanimous policy. So much, sir, for 
the cause why; and I hope that by this time, sir, the honorable gen- 
tleman is satisfied; if not, I do not know when, or how, or ichy, he ever 
will be. 

Having recurred to these two important measures, in answer to the 
gentleman's inquiries, I must now beg permission to go back to a pe- 
riod yet something earlier, for the purpose of still further showing 
how much, or rather how little, reason there is for the gentleman's 
insinuation, that political hopes or fears, or party associations, were 
the grounds of these New England votes. And after what has been 
said, I hope it may be forgiven me, if 1 allude to some political opin- 
ions and votes of my own, of very little public importance, certainly,' 
but which, from the time at which they were given and expressed, 
may pass for good witnesses on this occasion. 

This government, Mr. President, from its origin to the peace of 
1815, had been too much engrossed with various other important 
concerns, to be able to turn its thoughts inward, and look to the 
developement of its vast internal resources. In the early part of 
President Washington's administration, it was fully occupied with 
completing its own organization, providing for the public debt, de- 
fending the frontiers, and maintaining domestic peace. Before the 
termination of that administration, the fires of the French Revolution 
blazed forth, as from a new opened volcano, and the whole breadth 
of the ocean did not secure us from its effects. The smoke and the 
cinders reached us, though not the burning lava. Difficult and agi- 
tating questions, embarrassing to government, and dividing public 
opinion, sprung out of the new 'state of our foreign relations, and 
were succeeded by otiiers, and yet again by others, equally embar- 
rassing, and equally exciting division and discord, through the long 
series of twenty years; till they finally issued in the war with Eng- 
land. Down to the close of that war, no distinct, marked, and 
deliberate attention had been given, or could have been given, to the 



392 

internal condition of the country, its capacities of improvement, oi 
the constitutional power of the government, in regard to objects 
connected with such improvement. 

The peace, Mr. President, brought about an entirely new, and a 
most interesting state of things: it opened to us other prospects, and 
suggested other duties. We ourselves were changed, and the whole 
world was changed. The pacification of Europe, after June, 1815, 
assumed a firm and permanent aspect. The nations evidently man- 
ifested that they were disposed for peace. Some agitation of the 
waves might be expected, even after the storm had subsided, but the 
tendency was, strongly and rapidly, towards settled repose. 

It so happened, sir, that I was, at that time, a member of Con- 
gress, and like others, naturally turned my attention to the contem- 
plation of the newly altered condition of the country, and of the 
world. It appeared plainly enough to me, as well as to wiser and 
more experienced men, that the policy of the government would na- 
turally take a start in a new direction: because, new directions would 
necessarily be given to the pursuits and occupations of the people. 
We had pushed our commerce far and fast, under the advantage of 
a neutral flag. But there were now no longer flags, either neutral 
or belligerent. The harvest of neutrality had been great, but we 
had gathered it all. With the peace of Europe, it was obvious tliere 
would spring up in her circle of nations, a revived and invigorated 
spirit of trade, and a new activity in all the business and objects of 
civilized life. Hereafter, our commercial gains were to be earned 
only by success, in a close and intense competition. — Other nations 
would produce for themselves, and carry for themselves, and manu- 
facture for themselves, to the lull extent of their abilities. The crops 
of our plains would no longer sustain European arniies, nor our ships 
longer supply those whom war had rendered unable to supply them- 
selves. It was obvious, that, under these circumstances, the coun- 
try would begin to survey itself, and to estimate its own capacity of 
improvement. And this improvement — how was it to be accomplish- 
ed, and who was to accomplish it } We were ten or twelve millions 
of people, spread over almost half a world. We were more than 
twenty states, some stretching along the same sea-board, some along 
the same line of inland frontier, and others on opposite banks of the 
same vast rivers. Two considerations at once presented themselves, 
in looking at this state of things, with great force. One was, that that 
great branch of improvement, which consisted in furnishing new fa- 
cilities of intercourse, necessarily ran into different states, in every 
leading instance, and would benefit the citizens of all such states. 
No one state, therefore, in such cases, would assume the whole ex- 
pense, nor was the cooperation of several states to be expected. 
Take the instance of the Delaware breakwater. It will cost sev- 
eral millions of money. Would Pennsylvania alone ever have con- 
structed it.^ Certainly, never, while this union lasts, because it is 
not for her sole benefit. W^ould Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Del- 
aware, have united to accomplish it, at their joint expense ? Certainly 
not, for the same reason. It could not be done, therefore, but by 
the general government. The same may be said of the large 
inland undertakings, except that, in them, government, instead of 



393 

bearing the whole expense, cooperates with others who bear a part. 
The other consideration is, that the United States have the means. 
They enjoy the revenues derived from commerce, and the states 
have no abundant and easy sources of public income. The custom- 
houses fill the general treasury, while the states have scanty resour- 
ces, except by resort to heavy direct taxes. 

Under this view of things, I thought it necessary to settle, at least 
for myself, some definite notions with respect to the powers of the gov- 
ernment, in regard to internal affairs. It may not savor too much of 
self commendation to remark, that, with this object, I considered the 
constitution, its judicial construction, its cotemporaneous exposition, 
and the whole history of the legislation of Congress under it; and I 
arrived at the conclusion that government had power to accomplish 
sundry objects, or aid in their accomplishment, which are now com- 
monly spoken of as Internal Improvements. That conclusion, 
sir, may have been right, or it may have been wrong. I am not 
about to argue the grounds of it at large. I say only, that it was 
adopted and acted on even so early as in 1816. Yes, Mr. Presi- 
dent, I made up my opinion, and determined on my intended course 
of political conduct, on these subjects, in the fourteenth Congress, 
in 1816. And now, Mr. President, I have further to say, that I 
made up these opinions, and entered on this course of political con- 
duct, Teucro duce. Yes, sir, I pursued, in all this, a South Carolina 
track, on the doctrines of internal improvement. South Carolina, 
as she was then represented in the other House, set forth, in 1816, 
under a fresh and leading breeze, and I was among the followers. 
But if my leader sees new lights, and turns a sharp corner, unless 
I see new lights also, I keep straight on in the same path. I repeat, 
that leading gentlemen from South Carolina were first and foremost 
in behalf of the doctrines of internal improvements, when those 
doctrines came first to be considered and acted upon in Congress. 
The debate on the bank question, on the tariff of 1816, and on the 
direct tax, will show who was who, and what was what, at that 
time. The tarilTof 1816, one of the plain cases of oppression and 
usurpation, from which, if the government does not recede, individual 
states may justly secede from the government, is, sir, in truth, a 
South Carolina tariff, supported by South Carolina votes. But for 
those votes, it could not have passed in the form in which it did pass; 
whereas, if it had depended on Massachusetts votes, it would have 
been lost. — Does not the honorable gentleman well know all this.'' 
There are certainly those who do, full well, know it all. I do not 
say this to reproach South Carolina. I only state the fact; and I 
think it will appear to be true, that among the earliest and boldest 
advocates of the tariff, as a measure of protection, and on the ex- 
press ground of protection, were leading gentlemen of South Carolina 
in Congress. I did not then, and cannot now, understand their lan- 
guage in any other sense. While this tariff of 1816 was under 
discussion, in the House of Representatives, an honorable gentleman 
from Georgia, now of this House, (Mr. Forsyth,) moved to reduce 
the proposed duty on cotton. He failed, by four votes. South Car- 
olina giving three votes, (enough to have turned the scale,) against 
his motion. The act, sir, then passed, and received on its passage 

50 



394 

the support of a majority of the representatives of South Carolina 
present and voting. Tiiis act is the hrst, in the order of tiiose now 
denounced as plain usurpations. We see it daily, in the list, by the 
side of those of 1824 and 1828, as a case of manifest oppression, 
justifying disunion. I put it home, to the honorable member from 
South Carolina, that his own state was not only ' art and part ' in this 
measure, but the (■«(«« causuns. Without her aid, this seminal prin- 
ciple of mischief, this root of Upas, could not have been planted. I 
have already said, and it is true, that this act proceeded on the 
ground of protection. It interfered, directly, with existing interests 
of great value and amount. It cut up the Calcutta cotton trade by 
the roots, but it passed, nevertheless, and it passed on the principle 
of protecting manufactures, on the principle against free trade, on 
the princijile opposed /o thai which lets us alone. (Note 2.) 

Such, Mr. President, were the opinions of important and lead- 
ing gentlemen from South Carolina, on the subject of internal im- 
provement in 1816. I went out of Congress the next year; and 
returning again in 18'23 — thought I found Soutli Carolina where I 
had left her. I really supposed that all things remained as they 
were, and that the South Carolina doctrine of internal improvements 
would be defended by the same eloquent voices, and the same strong 
arms, as formerly. In the lapse of these six years, it is true, political 
associations had assumed anew aspect, and new divisions. A party 
had arisen in the South, hostile to the doctrine of internal improve- 
ments, and had vigorously attacked that doctrine. Anti-consolidation 
was the flag under which this party tbught; and its supporters in- 
veighed against internal improvements, much afler the manner in 
which the honorable gentleman has now inveighed against them, as 
part and parcel of the system of consolidation. Whether this party 
arose in South Carolina herself, or iti her neighbourhood, is more 
than I know. I think the latter. However that may have been, 
there were those found in South Carolina ready to make war upon 
it, and who did inake intrepid war upon it. Names being regarded 
as things, in such controversies, they l)estowed on the anti-im|)roye- 
ment gentlemen the ap|>ellation of radicals. Yes, sir, the appellation 
of radicals, as a term of distinction, applicable and applied to those 
who denied the liberal doctrines of internal improvements, originated, 
according to the best of my recollection, somewhere between North 
Carolina and Georgia. Well, sir, these mischievous radicals were 
to be put down, and the strong arm of South Carolina was stretched 
out to put them down. About tbis time, sir, I returned to Congress, 
The battle with the radicals had been fought, and our South Caroli- 
na champions of the doctrines of internal improvement had nobly 
maintained their gmund and were understood to have achieved a 
victory We looked upon them as conquerors. They had driven 
back the enemy with discomfiture — a thing, by the way, sir, which is 
not always performed when it is promised. A gentleman, to whom I 
have already referred in this debate, had come into Congress, during 
my absence from it, from Soutli Caroliiui, and liad brought with him 
a high reputation for ability. Jle came from a sihool witii which we 
had been acquainted, el noscihir a sociis. 1 hold in my hand, sir, a 
printed speech of this distinguished gentleman, (Mr. McDufhe,) 



395 

"on internal Improvements," delivered about the period to 
which I now refer, and printed with a few introductory remarks 
upon consolidation; in which, sir, I think he quite consolidated the 
arguments of his opponents, the radicals, if to cntsli he to consoli- 
date. I give you a short but substantive quotation from these re- 
marks. He is speaking of a pamphlet, then recently published, 
entitled " Consolidation ;" and having alluded to the question of 
renewing the charter of the former Bank of the United States, he 
says: "Moreover, in the early history of parties, and when Mr. 
Crawford advocated a renewal of the old charter, it was considered 
a federal measure; which internal improvements never was, as this 
author erroneously states. This latter measure originated in the 
administration of Mr. Jefferson, with the appropriation for the Cum- 
berland road; and was first proposed, as a stjstem, by Mr. Calhoun, 
and carried through the House of^ Representatives by a large 
majority of the republicans, including almost every one of the 
leading men who carried us through the late war." 

So, then, internal improvement is not one of the federal heresies. 
One paragraph more, sir: 

" Ihe author in question, not content with denouncing as federal- 
ists. General Jackson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Calhoun, and the majority 
ot the South Carohna delegation in Congress, modestly extends the 
denunciation to Mr. Monroe, and the whole republican "party. Here 
are his words:— 'During the administration of Mr. Monroe much 
has passed which the republican party would be glad to approve if 
they could!! But the principal feature, and that which has chiefly 
elicited these observations, is the renewal of the System of Inter- 
nal Improvements.' Now this measure was adopted by a vote of 
lloto 86, of a republican Congress, and sanctioned by a republican 
president. Who, then, is this author— who assumes the high pre- 
rogative of denouncing, in the name of the republican pkrty, the 
republican administration of the country? A denunciation including 
within its sweep Calhoun, Lowndes, and Cheves men who will be re- 
garded as the brightest ornaments of South Carolina, and the strong- 
est pillars of the republican party, as long as the late war shall be 
remembered, and talents and patriotism shall be regarded as the 
proper objects of the admiration and gratitude of a free people!!" 

Such are the opinions, sir, which were maintained by South Caro- 
lina gentlemen, in the House of Representatives, on the subject of 
internal improvements, when I took my seat there as a member from 
Massachusetts, in 1823. But this is not all. We had a bill before 
us, and passed it in that House, entitled " An act to procure the 
necessary surveys, plans, and estimates upon the subject of roads 
and canals." It authorized the President to cause surveys and estimates 
to be made of the ruuies of such roads and Canals as he might deem of 
national importance, in a commercial or militani point of vieiv, or for 
the transportation of the mail, and appropriated thirty thousand dollars, 
out of the treasury, to defray the expense. This" act, though pre- 
liminary in its nature, covered the whole ground. It took for grant- 
ed the complete power of internal improvement, as far as any of its 
advocates had ever contended for it. Having passed the other 
House, the bill came up to the Senate, and was here considered and 



S96 

debated in April, 1824. The honorable member from South Caro- 
lina was a member of the Senate at that time. While the bill was 
under consideration here, a motion was made to add the following 
proviso : 

" Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to 
affirm or adinU a power in Congress, on their own authority, to make 
roads or canals, within any of the states of the union." The yeas 
and nays were taken on this proviso, and the honorable member 
voted rn the negative! — The proviso failed. 

A motion was then made to add this proviso, viz: 

" Provided, That the faith of the United States is hereby pledged, 
that no money shall ever be expended for roads or canals, except 
it shall be among the several states, and in the same proportion as 
direct taxes are laid and assessed by the provisions of the constitu- 
tion." 

The honorable member voted against this proviso, also, and it 
failed. The bill was then put on its passage, and the honorable 
member voted for it, and it passed, and became a law. 

Now, it strikes me, sir, that there is no maintaining these votes, 
but upon the power of internal improvement, in its broadest sense. 
In truth, these bills for surveys and estimates have always been 
considered as test questions — they show who is for and who against 
internal improvement. This law itself went the whole length, and 
assumed the full and complete power. The gentleman's votes sus- 
tained that power, in every form in which the various propositions to 
amend presented it. He went for the entire and unrestrained 
authority, without consulting the states, and without agreeing to any 
proportionate distribution. And now suffer me to remind you, Mr. 
President, that it is this very same power, thus sanctioned, in every 
form, by the gentleman's own opinion, that is so plain and manifest 
a usurpation, that the state of South Carolina is supposed to be justi- 
fied in refusing submission to any laws carrying the power into effect. 
Truly, sir, is not this a little too hard ? May we not crave some mer- 
cy, under favor and protection of the gentleman's own authority ? 
Admittino- that a road, or a canal, must be written down flat usur- 
pation as was ever committed, may we find no mitigation in our 
respect for his pJace, and his vote, as one that knows the law? 

The tariff, which South Carolina had an efficient hand in establish- 
ing, in 1816, and this asserted power of internal improvement, ad- 
vanced by her in the same year, and, as we have seen, approved and 
sanctioned by her representatives in 1824, these two measures are 
the great grounds on which she is now thought to be justified in break- 
ing up the union, if she sees fit to break it up! 

I may now safely say, 1 think, that we have had the authority of 
leading and distinguished gentlemen from South Carolina, in support 
of the doctrine of internal improvement. I repeat, that, up to 1824, 
I for one, followed South Carolina; but, when that star, in its as- 
cension, veered off, in an unexpected direction, I relied on its light 
no longer. — [Here the Vice President said: Does the chair under- 
stand the gentleman from Massachusetts to say that the person now 
occupying the chair of the Senate has changed his opinions on the 
subject of internal improvements?] From nothing ever said to me, 



, 397 

sir, have I had reason to know of any change in the opinions of the 
person filling the chair of the Senate. If such change has taken 
place, I regret it. I speak generally of the state of South Caroli- 
na. Individuals, we know there are, who hold opinions favorable 
to the power. An application for its exercise, in behalf of a pub- 
lic work in South Carolina itself, is now pending, I believe, in the 
other House, presented by members from that state. 

I have thus, sir, perhaps, not without some tediousness of detail, 
shown that if I am in error, on the subject of internal improvement, 
how, and in what company, I fell into that error. If I am wrong, it 
is apparent who misled me. 

I go to other remarks of the honorable member: and I have to com- 
plain, of an entire misapprehension of what I said on the subject 
of the national debt, though I can hardly perceive how any one could 
misunderstand me. What I said was, not that I wished to put off 
the payment of the debt, but, on the contrary, that I had always voted 
for every measure for its reduction, as uniformly as the gentleman 
himself He seems to claim the exclusive merit of a disposition to 
reduce the public charge. I do not allow it to him. As a debt, I was, 
I am for paying it, because it is a charge on our finances, and on the 
industry of the country. But I observed, that I thought I perceived 
a morbid fervor on that subject — an excessive anxiety to pay off the 
debt, not so much because it is a debt simply, as because, while it 
lasts, it furnishes one objection to disunion. It is a tie of common 
interest, while it continues. I did not impute such motives to the 
honorable member himself, but that there is such a feeling in exist- 
ence, I have not a particle of doubt. The most I said was, that if 
one effect of the debt was to strengthen our union, that effect itself 
was not regretted by me, however much others might regret it. The 
gentleman has not seen how to reply to this, otherwise than by sup- 
posing me to have advanced the doctrine that a national debt is a 
national blessing. Others, I must hope, will find much less difficulty 
in understanding me. I distinctly and pointedly cautioned the hon- 
orable member not to understand me as expressing an opinion favor- 
able to the continuance of the debt. I repeated this caution, and 
repeated it more than once; but it was thrcfwn away. 

On yet another point, I was still more unaccountably misunder- 
stood. The gentleman had harangued against "consolidation." I 
told him, in reply, that there was one kind of consolidation to which 
I was attached, and that was, the consolidation of our union; and 
that this was precisely that consolidation to which I feared others 
were not attached. That such consolidation was the very end of the 
constitution — the leading object, as they had informed us themselves, 
which its framers had kept in view. I turned to their communica- 
tion, and read their very words — "the consolidation of the union"-— 
and expressed my devotion to this sort of consolidation. I said in 
terms, that I wished not, in the slightest degree, to augment the 
powers of this government; that my object was to preserve, not to 
enlarge; and that by consolidating the union, I understood no more 
than the strengthening of the union, and perpetuating it. — Having 
been thus n>:plicit; having thus read from the printed book, tlio pre- 
cise words which I adopted, as expressing my own sfntiments, it 

KK 



398 

passes comprehension, how any man could understand me as con- 
tending for an extension of the powers of the government, or for 
consohdation, in that odious sense, in which it means an accumula- 
tion, in the federal government, of the powers properly helonging to 
the states. 

1 repeat, sir, that in adopting the sentiment of the framers of the 
constitution, I read their language audibly, and word for word; and 
I pointed out the distinction, just as fully as I have now done, be- 
tween the consolidation of the union and that other obnoxious con- 
solidation which I disclauned. And yet the honorable member mis- 
understood me. — The gentleman had said that he wished for no fix- 
ed revenue — not a shilling. If, by a word, he could convert the capi- 
tol into gold, he would not do it. Why all this fear of revenue? 
Why, sir, because, as the gentleman told us, it tends to consolidation. 
Now, this' can mean neither more nor less than that a common rev- 
enue is a common interest, and that all common interests tend to 
hold the union of the states together. I confess I like that tenden- 
cy; if the gentleman dislikes it, he is right in deprecating a shil- 
ling's fixed revenue. So much, sir, for consolidation. , 

As well as I recollect the course of his remarks, the honorable 
gentleman next recurred to the subject of the tariff. He did not 
doubt the word must be of unpleasant sound to me, and proceeded, 
with an effort, neither new, nor attended with new success, to involve 
me and my votes in inconsistency and contradiction. I am happy the 
honorable gentleman has furnished me an opportunity of a timely 
remark or two on that subject. I was glad he approached it, for it is 
a question I enter upon without fear from any body. The strenuous 
toil of the gentleman has been to raise an inconsistency, between my 
dissent to the tariff in 18'24, and my vote in 1828. It is labor lost. 
He pays undeserved compliment to my speech in 1824; but this is to 
raise me high, that my fall, as he would have it, in 1828, may be more 
signal. Sir, there was no fall at all. Between the ground I stood 
on in 1824, and that I took in 1828, there was not only no precipice, 
but no declivity. It was a change of position, to meet new circum- 
stances, but on the same level. A plain tale explains the whole mat- 
ter. In 18 IG, I had not acquiesced in the tariff, then supported by 
South Carolina. To some parts of it, especially, I felt and expres- 
sed great repugnance. I held the same opinions in 1821, at the 
meeting in Faneuil Hall, to which the gentleman has alluded. I 
said then, and say now, that, as an original question, the authority of 
Congress to exercise the revenue power, with direct reference to 
the protection of manufactures, is a questionable authority, far more 
questionable, in my judgment, than the power of internal improve- 
ments. I must confess, sir, that, in one respect, some impression 
has been made on my opinions lately. Mr. Madison's publication 
has put the power in a very strong light. He has placed it, I must 
acknowledge, upon grounds of construction and argument, which 
seem impregnable. But even if the power were doubtful, on the 
face of the coustitvition itself, it had been assumed and asserted in 
the first revenue law ever passed under that same constitution; and, 
on this ground, as a matter settled by cotemporaneous practice, I 
had refrained from expressing the opinion that the tariff laws tran 



399 

scended constitutional limits, as the gentleman supposes. What 1 
did say at Faneuil Hall, as tar as I now remember, was, that this 
was originally matter ot" doubtful construction. The gentleman him- 
self, I suppose, thinks there is no doubt about it, and that the laws 
are plainly against the constitution. Mr. Madison's letters, already 
referred to, contain, in my judgment, by far the most a!)le exposition 
extant of this part of the constitution. He has satislied me, so far 
as the practice of the government had left it an open question. 

With a great majority of the Representatives of Massachusetts, I 
voted against the tariff of 1824. My reasons were then given, and 
I will not now repeat them. But, notwithstanding our dissent, the 
great states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky, went 
for the bill, in almost unbroken column, and it passed. Congress 
and the President sanctioned it, and it became the law of the land. 
What, then, were we to do? Our only option was, either to fall in 
with this settled course of public policy, and accommodate ourselves 
to it as well as we could, or to embrace the South Carolina doctrine, 
and talk of nullifying the statute by state interference. 

This last alternative did not suit our principles, and, of course, we 
adopted the former. In 1827, the subject came again before Con- 
gress, on a proposition favorable to wool and woollens. We looked 
upon the system of protection as being fixed and settled. The law 
of 1824 remained. It had gone into full operation, and, in regard 
to some objects intended by it, perhaps most of them, had produced 
all its expected effects. No man proposed to repeal it; no man at- 
tempted to renew the general contest on its principle. But, owing 
to subsequent and unforeseen occurrences, the benefit intended by it 
to wool and woollen fabrics had not been realized. Events, not 
known here when the law passed, had taken place, which defeated 
its object in that particular respect. A measure was accordingly 
brought forward to meet this precise deficiency; to remedy this par- 
ticular detect. It was limited to wool and woollens. Was ever any- 
thing more reasonable.'' If the policy of the tariff laws had become 
established in principle, as the permanent policy of the government, 
should they not be revised and amended, and made equal, like other 
laws, as exigencies should arise, or justice require.^ Because we 
had doubted about adopting the system, were we to refuse to cure its 
manifest defects, after it become adopted, and when no one attempt- 
ed its repeal.? And this, sir, is the inconsistency so much bruited. 
I had voted against the tariff of 1824 — but it passed; and in 1827 
and 1828, I voted to amend it, in a point essential to the interest of 
my constituents. Where is the inconsistency.'' Could I do other- 
wise.? Sir, does political consistency consist in always giving nega- 
tive votes.? Does it require of a public man to refuse to concur in 
amending laws, because they passed against his consent? Having 
voted against the tariff' originally; does consistency demand that I 
should do all in my power to maintain an unequal tariff", burdensome 
to my own constituents, in many respects, favorable in none? To 
consistency of that sort, I lay no claim. — And there is another sort to 
which I lay as little — and that is, a kind of consistency by which 
persons feel themselves as much bound to oppose a proposition alter 
it has become a law of the land, as before. 



400 

The bill of 1827, limited, as I have said, to the sino;le object m 
which the tariff of 1824 had manifestly failed in its effect, passed the 
House of Representatives, but was lost here. We had then the act 
of 1828. I need not recur to the history of a measure so recent. 
Its enemies spiced it with whatsoever they thought would render it 
distasteful; its friends took it, drugged as it was. Vast amounts of 
property, many millions, had been invested in manufactures, under 
the inducements of the act of 1824. Events called loudly, as 1 
thought, for further regulation to secure the degree of protection 
intended by that act. I was disposed to vote for such regulation, 
and desired nothing more; but certainly was not to be bantered out 
of my purpose by a threatened augmentation of duty on molasses, put 
into the bill for the avowed purpose of making it obnoxious. The 
vote may have been right or wrong, wise or unwise; but it is little 
less than absurd to allege against it an inconsistency with opposition 
to the former law. 

Sir, as to the. general subject of the tariff, I have little now to 
say. Another opportunity may be presented. I remarked the other 
day, that this policy did not begin with us in New England; and yet, 
sir, New England is charged, with vehemence, as being favorable, 
or charged with equal vehemence, as being unfavorable to the tariff 
policy, just as best suits the time, place, and occasion for making some 
charge against her. The credulity of the public has been put to its 
extreme capacity of false impression, relative to her conduct, in this 
particular. Through all the South, during the late contest, it was 
New England policy, and a New England administration, that was 
afflicting the country with a tariff beyond all endurance; while on 
the other side of the Alleghany, even the act of 1828 itself, the very 
sublimated essence of oppression, according to southern opinions, 
was pronounced to be one of those blessings, for which the West 
was indebted to the " generous South." 

With large investments in manufacturing establishments, and 
many and various interests connected with and dependent on them, 
it is not to be expected that New England, any more than other por- 
tions of the country, will now consent to any measure, destructive 
or highly dangerous. The duty of the government, at the present 
moment, would seem to be to preserve, not to destroy; to maintain 
the position which it has assumed; and, for one, I shall feel it an 
indispensable obligation to hold it steady, as far as in my power, to 
that degree of protection which it has undertaken to bestow. — No 
more of the tariff. 

Professing to be provoked, by what he chose to consider a charge 
made by me against South Carolina, the himorable member, Mr. 
President, has taken up a new crusade against New England. 
Leaving altogether the subject of the public lands, in which his suc- 
cess, perhaps, had been neither distinguished or satisfactory, and 
letting go, also, of the topic of the tariff, he sallied forth, in a gen- 
eral assault, on the opinions, politics, and parties of New England, 
as they have been exhibitrd in the last thirty years. This is natural. 
The " narrow policy " of the public lat)ds had proved a legal settle- 
ment in South Carolina, and was not to be removed. The " accursed 
policy," of the tariff, also, had established the fact of its birth and 



401 

parentage, in the same state. No wonder, therefore, the gentleman 
wished to carry the war, as he expressed it, into the enemy's coun- 
try. Prudently willing to quit these subjects, he was, doubtless, 
desirous of fastening on others, that which could not be transferred 
south of Mason and Dixon's line. The politics of New England 
became his theme; and it was in this part of his speech, 1 think, 
that he menaced me with such sore discomfiture. Discomliture! 
Why, sir, when he attacks anything which I maintain, and over- 
throws it; when he turns the right or left of any position which I 
take up; when he drives me from any ground I choose to occupy;^ he 
may then talk of discomfiture, but not till that distant day. What 
has he done.' Has he maintained his own charges? Has he proved 
what he alleged.!" Has he sustained himself in his attack on the gov- 
ernment, and on the history of the North, in the matter of the public 
lands.? Has he disproved a fact, refuted a pro^josition, weakened 
an argument, maintained by me.? Has he come within beat of drum 
of any position of mine.? Oh, no; but he has " carried the war into 
the enemy's country!" Carried the war into the enemy's country! 
Yes, sir, and what sort of a war has he made of it.? Why, sir, he 
has stretched a drag-net over the whole surface of perished pamph- 
lets, indiscreet sermons, frothy paragraphs, and fuming popular 
addresses; over whatever the pulpit, in its moments of alarm, the 
press in its heats, and parties in their extravagance, have severally 
thrown off in times of general excitement and violence. He has 
thus swept together a mass of such things as, but that they are now 
old and cold, the public health would have required him rather to 
leave in their state of dispersion. For a good long*hour or two, we 
had the unbroken pleasure of listening to the honorable member, 
while he recited, with his usual grace and spirit, and with evident 
high gusto, speeches, pamphlets, addresses and all the et ceteras of 
the political press, — such as warm heads produce in warm times; and 
such as it would be " discomfiture" indeed, for any one, whose ta.ste 
did not delight in that sort of reading, to be obliged to peruse. Tliis 
is his war. This it is to carry the war into the enemy's country. 
It is in an invasion of this sort, that he flatters himself with the expec- 
tation of gaining laurels tit to adorn a senator's brow! 

Mr. President, I shall not, it will, I trust, not be expected that I 
should, either now, or at any time, separate this farrago into parts, 
and answer and examine its components. I shall hardly bestow 
upon it all, a general remark or two. In the run of forty years, 
sir, under this constitution, we have experienced sundry successive 
violent party contests. — Party arose, indeed, with the constitution 
itself, and, in some form or other, has attended it through the greater 
part of its history. Whether any other constitutji^n than the old 
articles of confederation, was desirable, was, itself, a question on 
which parties formed; if a new constitution were framed, what 
powers should be given to it, was another question; and, when it 
had been formed, what was, in fact, the just extent of the powers 
actually conferred, was a third. Parties, as we know, existed under 
the first administration, as distinctly marked as those which have man- 
ifested themselves at any subsecpient period. Tl»e contest inum^- 
diately preceding the political change in 1801, and that, again, which 

51 KK* 



402 

existed at the commencement of the late war, are other instances of 
party excitement, of something more than usual strength and intens- 
ity. In all these conflicts there was, no doubt, much of violence on 
both and all sides. It would be impossible, if one had a fancy for 
such employment, to adjust the relative quantum of violence between 
these contending parties. There was enough in each, as must al- 
ways be expected in popular governments. With a great deal of 
proper and decorous discussion, there was mingled a great deal, also, 
of declamation, virulence, crimination, and abuse. In regard to 
any party, probably, at one of the leading epochs in the history of ; 
parties, enough may be found to make out another equally inflamed 
exhibition, as that with which the honorable member has edified us. 
For myself, sir, I shall not rake among the rubbish of by-gone times, 
to see what I can find, or whether I cannot find something, by which 
I can fix a blot on the escutcheon of any state, any party, or any 
part of the country. General Washington's administration was 
steadily and zealously maintained, as we all know, by jSew England. 
It was violently opposed elsewhere. We know in what quarter he 
had the most earnest, constant, and persevering support, in all his 
great and leading measures. We know where his private and per- 
sonal character were held in the highest degree of attachment and 
veneration; and we know, too, where his measures were opposed, his 
services slighted, and his character vilified. We know, or we might 
know, if we turned to the Journals, who expressed respect, grati- 
tude, and regret when he retired from the chief magistracy; and 
who refused to express either respect, gratitude, or regret. I shall 
not open those Xournals. Publications more abusive or scurrilous 
never saw the light, than were sent forth against Washington, and 
all his leading measures, from presses south of New England. But 
I shall not look them up. I employ no scavengers — no one is in 
attendance on me, tendering such means of retaliation; and, if there 
were, with an ass's load of them, with a bulk as huge as that which 
the gentleman himself has produced, I would not touch one of them. 
I see enough of the violence of our own times, to be no way anx- 
ious to rescue from forgetfulness the extravagances of times past. 
Besides, what is all this to the present purpose? It has nothing to 
do with the public lands, in regard to which the attack was begun; 
and it has nothing to do with those sentiments and opinions, which, 
I have thought, tend to disunion, and all of which the honorable 
member seems to have adopted himself, and undertaken to defend. 
New England has, at times, so argues the gentleman, held opinions 
as dangerous, as those which he now holds. Suppose this were so; 
why should he, therefore, abuse New England? If he finds himself 
countenanced by acts of hers, how is it that, while he relies on these 
acts, he covers, or seeks to cover, their authors with reproach? But, 
sir, if, in the course of forty years, there have been undue efferves- 
cences of party in ^ew England, has the same thing happened no- 
where else? Party animosity and party outrage, not in New Eng- 
land, but elsewhere, denounced President Washington, not only as 
a Federalist, but as a Tory, a British agent, a man, who, in his high 
office, sanctioned corruption. But do(;s tiie honorable member sup- 
pose, that, if I had a tender here, who should put such an effusion 



403 

of wickedness and folly in my hand, that I would stand up and read 
it against the South? Parties ran into great heats again, in 171>9, 
and 1800. What was said, sir, or rather what was not said, in those 
years, against John Adams, one of the signers of the Declaration of 
Independence, and its admitted ablest defender on the Hoor of Con^^ 
gress? If the gentleman wishes to increase his stores of party 
abuse and frothy violence; if he has a determined proclivity to such 
pursuits, there are treasures of that sort south of the Potomac, 
much to his taste, yet untouched — I shall not touch them. 

The parties which divided the country at the commencement of 
the late war, were violent. But, then, there was violence on both 
sides, and violence in every state. — Minorities and majorities were 
equally violent. There was no more violence against the war in 
New England, than in other states; nor any more appearance of 
violence, except that, owing to a dense population, greater facility of 
assembling, and more presses, there may have been more in quantity, 
spoken and printed there, than in some other places. In the article 
of sermons, too, New England is somewhat more abundant than 
South Carolina; and, for that reason, the chance of finding here 
and there an exceptiofiable one, may be greater. I hope, too, there 
are more good ones. Opposition may have been more formidable 
in New England, as it embraced a larger portion of the whole pop 
ulation; but it was no more unrestrained in its principle, or violent 
in manner. The minorities dealt quite as harshly with their own 
state governments, as the majorities dealt with the administration 
here. There were presses on both sides, popular meetings on both 
sides, ay, and pulpits on both sides, also. The gentleman's pur- 
veyors have only catered tor him among the productions of one side. 
I certainly shall not supply the deficiency by furnishing samples of 
the other. I leave to him, and to them, the whole concern. 

It is enough for me to say, that if, in any part of this their grate- 
ful occupation; if, in all their researches, they^nd anything in the 
history of Massachusetts, or New England, or in the proceedings of 
any legislative, or other public body, disloyal to the union, speaking 
slightly of its value, proposing to break it up, or recommending non- 
intercourse with neijj-hbourinji states, on account of diti'erence of 
political opinion, then, sir, I give them all up to the honorable gen- 
tleman's unrestrained rebuke; expecting, however, that he will 
extend his buffetings, in like manner to all similar proceedings, wher- 
ever else found. 

The gentleman, sir, has spoken at large, of former parties, now no 
longer in being, by their received appellations, and has undertaken 
to instruct us, not only in the knowledge of their principles, but of 
their respective pedigrees also. He has ascended to the origin, and 
run out their genealogies. With most exemplary modesty, he speaks 
of the party to which he professes to have belonged himself, as the 
true Pure, the only honest, patriotic party, derived by regular descent, 
from father to son, from the time of the virtuous Romans! Spread- 
ing before us the famiUj tree of political parties, he takes especial 
care to show himself, snugly perched on a popular bough! He is 
wakelul to the expediency of adapting such rules of descent, as shall 
bring him in, in exclusion of others, as an heir to (he inheritance of 



404 

all public virtue, and all true political principle. His party, and his 
opinions, are sure to be orthodox; heterodoxy is confined to his op- 
ponents. He spoke, sir, of the federalists, and 1 thought I saw 
some eyes begin to open and stare a little, when he ventured on that 
ground. I expected he would draw his sketches rather hghtly, when 
he looked on the circle round him, and, especially, if he should cast 
his thoughts to the high places, out of the Senate. Nevertheless, 
he went back to Rome, ad annum urhe condita, and found the fathers 
of the federalists, in the primeval aristocrats of that renowned em- 
pire! He traced the flow of federal blood down, through successive 
ages and centuries, till he brought it into the veins of the American 
tories, (of whom, by the way, there were twenty in the Carolinas, 
for one in Massachusetts.) From the tories, he followed it to the 
federalists; and, as the federal party was broken up, and there was 
no possibility of transmitting it further on this side the Atlantic, he 
seems to have discovered that it has gone off, collaterally, though 
against all the canons of descent, into the Ultras of France, and 
finally become extinguished, like exploded gas, among the adherents 
of Don Miguel! This, sir, is an abstract of the gentleman's history 
of federalism. I am not about to controvert it. — It is not, at pres- 
ent, worth the pains of refutation; because, sir, if at this day, any 
one feels the sin of federalism lying heavily on his conscience, he 
can easily procure remission. He may even obtain an indulgence, 
if he be desirous of repeating the same transgression. It is an 
affair of no ditliculty to get into this same right line of patriotic de- 
scent. A man, now-a-days, is at liberty to choose his political 
parentage. He may elect his own father. Federalist, or not, he 
may, if he choose, claim to belong to the favored stock, and his claim 
will be allowed. He may carry back his pretensions just as far as 
the honorable gentleman himself; nay, he may make himself out the 
honorable gentleman's cousin, and prove, satisfactorily, that he is 
descended from th*same political great grandfather. All this is 
allowable. — We all know a process, sir, by which the whole Essex 
Junto could, in one hour, be all washed white from their ancient fed- 
eralism, and come out, every one of them, an original democrat, 
dyed in the wool! Some of them have actually undergone the ope- 
ration, and they say it is quite easy. The only inconvenience it 
occasions, as they tell us, is a slight tendency of the blood to the 
face, a soft suffusion, which, however, is very transient, since noth- 
ing is said by those whom they join, calculated to deepen the red on 
the cheek, but a prudent silence observed, in regard to all the past. 
Indeed, sir, some smiles of approbation have been bestowed, and 
some crumbs of comfort have fallen, not a thousand miles from the 
door of the Hartford Convention itself. And if the author of the 
ordinance of 1787 possessed the other requisite qualitications, there 
is no knowing, notwithstanding his federalism, to what heights of 
favor he might not yet attain. 

Mr. President, in carrying his warfare, such as it was, into New 
Ent^land, the honorable gentleman all along professes to be acting 
on the defensive. He elects to consider me as having assailed South 
Carolina, and insists that be comes forth only as her champion, and 
in her defence. Sir, I do not admit that 1 made any attack whatev 



405 

er on South Carolina. Nothing like it. The honorable member, 
in his first speech, expressed opinions, in regard to revenue and 
some other topics, which I heard both with pain and with surprise. 
I told the gentleman I was aware tiiat such sentiments were enter- 
tained out of the government, but had not expected to find them ad- 
vanced in it; that I knew there were persons in the South who speak 
of our union with indifference, or doubt, taking pains to magnify its 
evils, and to say nothing of its benefits; that the honorable member 
himself, I was sure, could never be one of these; and I regretted the 
expression of such opinions as he had avowed, because I thought 
their obvious tendency was to encourage feelings of disrespect to the 
union, and to weaken its connexion. This, sir, is the sum and sub- 
stance of all I said on the subject. And this constitutes the attack, 
which called on the chivalry of the gentleman, in his own opinion, 
to harry us with such a foray, among the party pamphlets and party 
proceedings of Massachusetts! If he means that I spoke with dis- 
satisfaction or disrespect of the ebullitions of individuals in South 
Carolina, it is true. But if he means that I had assailed the char- 
acter of the state, her honor, or patriotism; that I had reflected on 
her history or her conduct, he had not the slightest ground for any 
such assumption. I did not even refer, I think, in my observations, 
to any collection of individuals. I said nothing of the recent con- 
ventions. I spoke in the most guarded and careful manner, and on- 
ly expressed my regret for the publication of opinions which I pre- 
sumed the honorable member disapproved as much as myself In 
this, it seems, I was mistaken. I do not remember that the gentleman 
has disclaimed any sentiment, or any opinion, of a supposed anti- 
union tendency, which on all, or any of the recent occasions has 
been expressed. — The whole drift of his speech has been rather to 
prove, that, in divers times and manners, sentiments equally liable 
to my objection have been promulged in New England. — And one 
would suppose that his object, in this reference to Massachusetts, 
was to find a precedent to justify proceedings in the South, were it 
not for the reproach and contumely with which he labors, all along, 
to load these, his own chosen precedeftts. By way of defending 
South Carolina from what he chooses to think an attack on her, he 
first quotes the example of Massachusetts, and then denounces that 
example in good set terms. This two-fold purpose, not very con- 
sistent with itself, one would think, was exhibited more than once in 
the course of his speech. He referred, for instance, to the Hart- 
ford Convention. Did he do this for authority, or for a topic of 
reproach? Apparently for both: tor he told us that he should find 
no fault with the mere tact of holding such a convention, and con- 
sidering and discussing such questions as he supposes were then and 
there discussed; but what rendered it obnoxious was the time it was 
holden, and the circumstances of the country, then existing. We 
were in a war, he said, and the country needed all our aid — the 
hand of government required to be strengthened, not weakened — 
and patriotism should have postponed such proceedings to another 
day. The thing itself, then, is a precedent; the time and manner 
of it, only, a subject of censure. Now, sir, 1 go much further, 
on this point, than the honorable member. Supposing, as the gen- 



406 

tlernan seems to, that the Hartford Convention assembled for any 
such purpose as breaking up the union, because they thought un- 
constitutional laws had been passed, or to consult on that subject, 
or to calculate Ike value ojthe lui'wn; supposing this to be their purpose, 
or any part of it, then, 1 say the meeting itsek" was disloyal, and was 
obnoxious to censure, whether held in time of peace or time of war, 
or under whatever circumstances. The material question is the 
object. Is dissolution the object f If it be, external circumstances 
may make it a more or less aggravated case, but cannot atiect the 
princii)le. I do not hold, therefore, sir, that the Hartford Conven- 
tion was pardonable, even to the extent of the gentleman's admission, 
if its objects were really such as have been imputed to it. Sir, 
there never was a time, under any degree of excitement, in which the 
Hartford Convention, or any other convention, could maintain itself 
one moment in New England, if assembled for any such purpose as 
the gentleman says would have been an allowable purpose. To hold 
conventions to decide constitutional law! — to try the binding validity 
of statutes, by votes in a convention! Sir, the Hartford Convention, 
I presume, would not desire that the honorable gentleman should be 
their defender or advocate, if he puts their case upon such untenable 
and extravagant grounds. 

Then, sir, the gentleman has no fault to find with these recently 
promulgated South Carolina opinions. And, certainly, he need 
have none; for his own sentiments as now advanced, and advanced 
on reflection, as far as I have been able to comprehend them, go 
the full length of all these opinions. I propose, sir, to say something 
on these, and to consider how far they are just and constitutional. 
Before doing that, however, let me observe, that the eulogium pro- 
nounced on the character of the state of South Carolina, by the 
honorable gentleman, for her revolutionary and other merits, meets 
my hearty concurrence. I shall not acknowledge that the honora- 
ble member goes before me in regard for whatever of distinguished 
talent, or distinguished character. South Carolina has produced. I 
claim part of the honor, I partake in the pride, of her great names. 
I claim them for countrymen, one and all. The Laurenses, the Rut- 
ledges, the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Marions — Americans, all — 
whose fame is no more to be hemmed in by state lines, than their tal- 
ents and patriotism were capable of being circumscribed within the 
same narrow limits. In their day and generation, they served and 
honored the country, and the v/hole country ; and their renown is of the 
treasures of the whole country. Him, whose honored name the gentle- 
man himself bears — does he esteem me less capable of gratitude for 
his patriotism, or sympathy for his sufierings, than if his eyes had first 
opened upon the light of Massachusetts, instead of South Carolina? 
Sir, dofv;'he suppose it in his power to exhibit a Carolina name, so 
bright, as to produce envy in my bosom .^ No, sir, increased grati- 
fication and delight, rather. I thank God, that, if I am gifted with 
littb of the spirit which is able to raise mortals to the skies, I have 
yet none, as 1 trust, of that other spirit, which would drag angels 
down. When I sliall be found, sir, in my place here, in the Senate, 
or elsewhere, to sneer at public merit, because it happens to spring 
up beyond the little limits of my own state, or neighbourhood; when 



• 407 

I refuse, for any such cause, or for any cause, the homage due to 
American talent, to elevated patriotism, to sincere devotion to liber- 
ty and the country; or, if I see an uncommon endowment of Heav- 
en — if I see extraordinary capacity and virtue in any son of the 
South — and if, moved by local prejudice, or gangrened by state 
jealousy, I get up here to abate the tithe of a haif from his just 
character and just fame, may my tongue cleave to the roof of my 
mouth! 

Sir, let me recur to pleasing recollections — let me indulge in re- 
freshing remembrance of the past — let me remind you that in early 
times, no states cherished greater harmony, both of principle and 
feeling, than Massachusetts and South Carolina. Would to God that 
harmony might again return! Shoulder to shoulder they went 
through the revolution — hand in hand they stood round the admin- 
istration of Washington, and felt his own great arm lean on them 
for support. Unkind feeling, if it exist, alienation and distrust, are 
the growth, unnatural to such soils, of false principles since sown. 
They are weeds, the seeds of which that same great arm never scat- 
tered. 

Mr. President, I shall enter on no encomium upon Massachusetts — 
she needs none. There she is — behold her, and judge for your- 
selves. There is her history: the world knows it by heart. The 
past, at least, is secure. There is Boston, and Concord, and Lex- 
ington, and Bunker Hill — and there they will remain forever. The 
bones of her sons, falling in the great struggle for Independence, 
now lie mingled with the soil of every state, from New England to 
Georgia; and there they will lie forever. And sir, where jVmerican 
Liberty raised its first voice; and where its youth was nurtured and 
sustained, there it still lives, in the strength of its manhood and full 
of its original spirit. If discord and disunion shall wound it — if 
party strife and blind ambition shall hawk at and tear it — if folly and 
madness — if uneasiness, under salutary and necessary restraint — 
shall succeed to separate it from that union, by which alone its ex- 
istence is made sure, it will stand, in the end, by the side of that 
cradle in which its infancy was rocked: it will stretch forth its- arm 
with whatever of vigor it may still retain, over the friends who 
gather round it; and it will fall at last, if fall it must, amidst the proud- 
est monuments of its own glory, and on the very spot of i^ origin. 

There yet remains to be performed, Mr. President, by far the 
mo.st grave and important duty, which I feel to be devolved on me, 
by this occasion. It is to state, and to defend, what I conceive to be 
the true principles of the constitution under which we are here as- 
sembled. I might well have desired that so weighty a task should 
have fallen into other and abler hands. I could have wished that it 
should have been executed by those, whose character and experi- 
ence give weight and influence to their opinions, such as cannot 
possibly belong to mine. But, sir, I have met the occasion, not 
sought it: and I shall proceed to state my own sentiments, without 
challenging for them any particular regard, with studied plainness, 
and as much precision as possible. 

I understand the honorable gentleman from South Carolina to 
maintain, tliat it is a right of the state legislatures to interfere, when- 



408 

ever, in their judgment, this government transcends its constitution 
al Hmits, and to arrest the operation of its hiws. 

I understand him to maintain this right; as a right existing under 
the constitution, not as a right to overthrow it, on the ground of ex- 
treme necessity, such as woukl justify violent revolution. 

I understand him to maintain an authority, on the part of the states, 
thus to interfere, for the purpose of correcting the exercise of pow- 
er by the general government, of checking it, and of compelling it to 
conform to their opinion of the extent of its powers. 

I understand him to maintain, that the ultimate power of judging 
of the constitutional extent of its own authority, is not lodged ex- 
clusively in the general government, or any branch of it; but that, 
on the contrary, the states may lawfully decide for themselves, and 
each state for itself, whether, in a given case, the act of the general 
government transcends its power. 

I understand him to insist, that if the exigency of the case, in the 
opinion of any state government require it, such state government 
may, by its own sovereign authority, annul an act of the general 
government, which it deems plainly and palpably unconstitutional. 

This is the sum of what I understand from him, to be the South 
Carolina doctrine; and the doctrine which he maintains. I propose 
to consider it, and compare it with the constitution. Allow me to say, 
as a preliminary .remark, that I call this the South Carolina doctrine, 
only because the gentleman himself has so denominated it. I do 
not feel at liberty to say that South Carolina, as a state, has ever 
advanced these sentiments. I hope she has not, and never may 
That a great majority of her people are opposed to the tariff laws, is 
doubtless true. That a majority, somewhat less than that just 
mentioned, conscientiously believe these laws unconstitutional, may 
probably also be true. But, that any majority holds to the right of 
direct state interference, at state discretion, the right of nullifying 
acts of Congress, by acts of state legislation, is more than I know, 
and what I shall be slow to believe. 

That there are individuals, besides the honorable gentleman, who 
do maintain these opinions, is quite certain. I recollect the recent 
expression of a sentiment, which circumstances attending its utter- 
ance and publication, justify us in supposing was not unpremedi- 
tated. " The sovereignty of the state — never to be controlled, con- 
strued, &t decided on, but by her own feelings of honorable 
justice." 

[Mr. Hayxe here rose, and said, that for the purpose of being 
clearly understood, he would state, that his proposition was in the 
words of the Virginia resolution, as follows: 

" That this assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that 
it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the 
compact, to which the states are parties, as limited by the plain sense 
and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no 
farther valid tlian they are authorized by the grants enumerated in 
that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate palpable and dangerous 
exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the .states 
who are parties thereto, have the; right, and are in duty bound to in- 
terpos(\ for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, 



409 

within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties 
appertaining to them."] 

Mr. Wehster resumed: 

I am quite aware, Mr. President, of the existence of the reso- 
lution which the gentleman read, and has now repeated, and that 
he relies on it as his authority. I know the source, too, from which 
it is understood to have proceeded. I need not say that I have 
much respect for the constitutional opinions of Mr. Madison; they 
would weigh greatly with me, always. But, before the authority 
of his opinion be vouched for the gentleman's proposition, it will be 
proper to consider what is the fair interpretation of that resolution, 
to which ]\Ir. JMadison is understood to have given his sanction. 
As the gentleman construes it, it is an authority tor him. Possibly, 
he may not have adopted the right construction. That resolution 
declares, that, in the case of the dangerous exercise of powers not granted 
by the general government, the states may interpose to arrest the progress 
of the evil. But how interpose, and what does this declaration pur- 
port } Does it mean no more, than that there may be extreme cases, in 
wiiich the people, in any mode of assembling, may resist usurpation, 
and relieve themselves from a tyrannical government .? IVo one will 
deny this. Such resistance is not only acknowledged to be just in 
America, but in England also. Blackstone admits as much, in the 
theory, and practice, too, of the Knglish constitution. We, sir, 
who oppose the Carolina doctrine, do not deny that the people may, 
if they choose, throw otl' any government, when it becomes oppres- 
sive and intolerable, and erect a better in its stead. We all know 
that civil institutions are established for the public benefit, and that 
when they cease to answer the ends of their existence, they may be 
changed. But I do not understand the doctrine now contended for 
to be that, which, for the sake of distinctness, we may call the right 
of revolution. I understand the gentleman to maintain, that, with- 
out revolution, without civil commotion, without rebellion, a remedy 
for supposed abuse and transgression of the powers of the general 
government, lies in a direct appeal to the interference of the state 
governments. []\Ir. Hayne here rose: He did not contend, he said, 
for the mere right of revolution, but for the right of constitutional 
resistance. What he maintained, was, that in case of a plain, pal- 
pable violation of the constitution, by the general government, a 
state may interpose; and that this interposition is constitutional.] 

Mr. Weuster resumed: So, sir, 1 understood the gentleman, 
and am happy to find that I did not misunderstand him. What he 
contends for, is, that it is constitutional to interrupt the administra- 
tion of the constitution itself, in the hands of those who are chosen 
and sworn to administer it, by the direct interference, in form of law, 
of the states, in virtue of their sovereign capacity. The inherent 
right in the people to reform their government I do not deny: and 
they have another right, and that is, to resist unconstitutional laws, 
without overturning the govermuent. It is no doctrine of mine, that 
unconstitutional laws bind the people. The great question is, whose 
prerogative is it to decide on the constitulionality, or nnconstilutionality 
of the laws? On that, the main debate hinges. The proposition, 
that, in case of a supposed violation of the constitution by Congress, 
52 LL 



410 

the states have a constitutional right to interfere, and annul the law 
of Congress, is the proposition of the gentleman: 1 du not admit it 
If the gentleman hud intended no more than to assert the right of 
revolution, for justirtable cause, he would have said only what all 
agree to. But I cannot conceive that there can be a middle course, 
between submission to the laws, when regularly pronounced con- 
stitutional, on the one hand, and open resistance, which is revolu- 
tion, or rebellion, on the other. I say, the right of a state to annul 
a law of Congress, cannot be maintained, but on the ground of the 
unalienable right of man to resist oppression; that is to say, upon 
the srround of revolution. I admit that there is an ultimate violent 
remedy, above the constitution, and in defiance of the constitution, 
which may be resorted to, when a revolution is to be justified. But 
I do not admit that, under the constitution, and in conformity with it, 
there is any mode in which a state government, as a member of the 
union, can interfere and stop the progress of the general government, 
by force of her own laws, under any circumstances whatever. 

This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government, and 
the source of its power. Whose agent is it.? Is it the creature of 
the state legislatures, or the creature of the people } If the govern- 
ment of the United States be the agent of the state governments, than 
they may control it, provided they can agree in the manner of con- 
trolling it; if it be the agent of the people, then the people alone can 
control it, restrain it, modify, or reform it. It is observable enough, 
that the doctrine tor which the honorable gentleman contends, leads 
him to the necessity of maintaining, not only that this general govern- 
ment is the creature of the states, but that it is the creature of each 
of the states severally; so that each may assert the power, for itself, 
of determining whether it acts within the limits of its authority. It 
is the servant of four and twenty masters, of different wills and dif- 
ferent purposes, and yet bound to obey all. This absurdity (for it 
seems no less) arises from a misconception as to the origin of this gov- 
ernment and its true character. It is, sir, the people's constitution, 
the people's government; made for the people; made by the people; 
and answerable to the people. The people of the United States have 
declared that this constitution shall be the supreme law. We must 
either admit the proposition, or dispute their authority. The states 
are, unquestionably, sovereign, so tar as their sovereignty is not 
affected by this supreme law. But the state legislatures, as political 
bodies, however sovereign, are yet not sovereign over the people. 
So far as the people have given power to the general government, 
so far the grant is unquestionably good, and the government holds 
of the people, and not of the state governments. We are all agents 
of the same supreme power, the people. — The general government 
and the state governments derive their authority from the same 
source. Neither can, in relation to the other, be called primary, 
though one is definite and restricted and the other general and 
residuary. The national government possesses those powers which 
it can be shown the people have conferred on it, and no more. All 
the rest belongs to the state governments or to the peo|)le themselves. 
So iar as the people have restrained state sovereignty, by the expres- 
sion of their will, in the constitution of the United States, so far, it 



411 

must be admitted, state sovereignty is effectually controlled. I do 
not contend that it is, or ought to be controlled farther. The senti- 
ment to which I have referred, propounds that state sovereignty is 
only to be controlled by its own " feeling of justice;" that is to say, 
it is not to be controlled at all; for one who is to follow his own feelings 
is under no legal control. — Now, however men may think this ought 
to be, the fact is, that the people of the United States have chosen 
to impose control on state sovereignties. There are those, doubtless, 
who wish they had been left without restraint; but the constitution 
has ordered the matter differently. To make war, for instance, is an 
exercise of sovereignty; but the constitution declares that no state 
shall make war. To coin money is another exercise of sovereign pow- 
er; but no state is at liberty to coin money. Again, the constitution 
says that no sovereign state shall be so sovereign as to make a treaty. 
These prohibitions, it must be confessed, are a control on the state 
sovereignty of South Carolina, as well as of the other states, which 
does not arise " from her own feelings of honorable justice." Such 
an opinion, therefore, is in defiance of the plainest provisions of the 
constitution. 

There are other proceedings of public bodies which have already 
been alluded to, and to which I refer again for the purpose of ascer- 
taining, more fully, what is the length and breadth of that doctrine, 
denominated the Carolina doctrine, which the honorable member has 
now stood up on this floor to maintain. In one of them I find it re- 
solved, that " the tariff of 1828, and every other tariff designed to 
promote one branch of industry at the expense of others, is contrary 
to the meaning and intention of the Federal compact; and, as such, 
a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpation of power, by a de- 
termined majority, wielding the general government beyond the lim- 
its of its delegated powers, as calls upon the states which compose 
the suffering minority, in their sovereign capacity, to exercise the 
powers which, as sovereigns, necessarily devolve upon them, when 
their compact is violated." 

Observe, sir, that this resolution holds the tariff of 1828, and every 
other tariff, designed to promote one branch of industry at the expense 
of another, to be such a dangerous, palpable, and deliberate usurpa- 
tion of power, as calls upon the states, in their sovereign capacity, 
to interfere by their own authority. This denunciation, Mr. Presi- 
dent, you will please to observe, includes our old tariff of 1816, as 
well as all others; because that was established to promote the inter- 
est of the manufactures of cotton, to the manifest and admitted inju- 
ry of the Calcutta cotton trade. Observe, again, that all the quali- 
fications are here rehearsed and charged upon the tarift', which are 
necessary to bring the case within the gentleman's proposition. The 
tariff' is a usurpation; it is a dangerous usurpation; it is a palpable 
usurpation; it is a deliberate usurpation. It is such a usurpation, 
therefore, as calls upon the states to exercise their right of interfer- 
ence. Here is a case, then, within the gentleman's principles, and 
all his qualifications of his principles. It is a case for action. The 
constitution is plainly, dangerously, palpably, and deliberately viola- 
ted; and the states must interpose their own authority to arrest the 
law. Let us suppose the state of South Carolina to express this 



412 

same opinion, by the voice of her legislature. That would be very 

imposing; hut what th(ui? Is the voice of one state conclusive? It 
so happens that at the very moment when South Carolina resolves 
that the tariiTlaws are unconstitutional, Pennsylvania and Kentucky, 
resolve exactly the reverse. Tluij hold those laws to be both highly 
proper and strictly constitutional. And now, sir, how docs the hon- 
oral)le member propose to deal with this case? How does he 
relieve us Irom this ditbculty, upon any principle of his.'' His con- 
struction gets us into it; how does he propose to get us out? 

In Carolina, the tariff is a palpable, deliberate usurpation; Caro- 
lina, therefore, may nidUfij it, and refuse to pay the duties. In Penn- 
sylvania, it is both clearly constitutional, and highly expedient ; and 
there, the duties are to be paid. And yet, we live under a govern- 
ment of uniform laws, and under a constitution, too, which contains 
an express provision, as it happens, that all duties shall be equal in 
all the states. Does not this approach absurdity? 

If there be no power to settle such questions, independent of either 
of the states, is not the whole union a rope of sand? Are we not 
thrown back again, precisely, upon the old confederation? 

It is too plain to be argued. Four-and-tvventy interpreters of con- 
stitutional law, each with a power to decide for itself, and none with 
autliority to hind anybody else, and this constitutional law the only 
bond of their union! What is such a state of things, but a mere con- 
nexion during pleasure, or, to use the phraseology of the times, 
diinng feelhiix ? And that feeling, too, not the feeling of the people, 
who established the constitution, but the feeling of the state govern- 
ments. 

In another of the South Carolina addresses, having premised that 
the crisis requires " all the concentrated energy of passion," an 
attitude of open resistance to the laws of the union is advised. Open 
resistance to the laws, th< n, is the constituti;inal remedy, the con- 
servative power of the state, which the South Carolina doctrines 
teach for the redress of political evils, real or imaginary. And its 
authors further say, that, appealing with confidence to the consti- 
tution itself, to justify their opinions, they cannot consent to try their 
accuracy by the courts of justice, in one sense, indeed, sir, this 
is assuming an attitude of open resistance in favor of liberty. But 
what sort of liberty ? The liberty of establishing their own opinions, 
in dt^fiance of the opinions of all others; the liberty of judging and 
of deciding exclusively themselves, in a matter in which others have 
as much right to judge and decide as they; the liberty of placing 
their own opinions above tlie judgment of all others, above the laws, 
and above the constitution. This is their liberty, and this is the fair 
result of the proposition contended f(jr by the honorable gentleman. 
Or it may be more properly said, it is identical with it, rather than a 
result from it. 

In the same publication, we find tlie fdlowing: "Previously to our 
revolution, when the arm of oppr( ssion was stretched over New Eng- 
land, where did our northern brethren meet with a braver sympathy 
than that which sprung from tiie bosoms of Car' linians. JVe had )io 
exfoiiion^ /(o opprrHsimi^ no collisum willi (he A-r/tii's nuniskrs, no naviga- 
iuin inlercsts sj) riuij:;lHg up, in envious rivalnj of En^^laiid." 



?) 



413 

This seems extraordinary language. South Carolina no collision 
with the king's ministers in 1775! No extortion! JNo oppression! 
But, sir, it is also most significant language. Does any man doubt 
the purpose for which it was penned? Can any one fail to see that it 
was designed to raise in the reader's mind the question, whether, at 
this time — that is to say, in 1828 — South Carolina has any collision 
with the king's ministers, any oppression, or extortion, to fear from 
England.? Whether, in short, England is not as naturally the friend 
of South Carolina, as New England, with her navigation interests 
springing up in envious rivalry of England.' 

Is it not strange, sir, that an intelligent man in South Carolina, 
in 1828, should thus labor to prove, that, in 1775, there was no hos- 
tility, no cause of war, between South Carolina and England? That 
she had no occasion, in reference to her own interest, or from a re- 
gard to her own welfare, to take up arms in the revolutionary contest? 
Can any one account for the expression of such strange sentiments, 
and their circulation through the state, otherwise than by supposing 
the object to be, what I have already intimated, to raise the question, 
if they had no ^'■collision'''' (mark the expression)with the ministers of 
king George the Third, in 1775, what collision have they, in 1828, with 
the ministers of king George the Fourth ? What is there now, in 
the existing state of things, to separate Carolina from 0/d, more, or 
rather, than from JVew England? 

Resolutions, sir, have been recently passed by the legislature of 
South Carolina. I need not refer to them; they go no farther than 
the honorable gentleman himself has gone — and, I hope, not so far. 
I content myself, therefore, with debating the matter with him. 

And now, sir, what I have first to say on this subject is, that, at 
no time, and under no circumstances, has New England, or any state 
in New England, or any respectable body of persons in New Eng- 
land, or any public man of standing in New England, put forth such 
a doctrine as this Carolina doctrine. 

The gentleman has found no case, he can find none, to support his 
own opinions by New England authority. New England has stud- 
ied the constitution in other schools, and under other teachers. She 
looks upon it with other regards, and deems more highly and reverent- 
ly both of its just authority, and its utility and excellence. The his- 
tory of her legislative proceedings may be traced — the ephemeral 
effusions of temporary bodies, called together by the excitement of 
the occasion, may be hunted up — they have been hunted up. The 
opinions and votes of her |)ublic men, in and out of Congress, may 
be explored — it will all be in vain. The Carolina doctrine can de- 
rive from her neither countenance nor support. She rejects it now; 
she always did reject it; and till she loses her senses, she always 
will reject it. The honorable member has referred to expressions, on 
the subject of the embargo law, made in this place, by an honorable 
and venerable gentbeman, (Mr. Hillhouse,) now favoring us with his 
presence. He quotes that distinguished senator as saying, that, in 
his judgment, the embargo law was unconstitutional, and that, there- 
fore, in his opinion, the people were not bound to obey it. That, 
sir, is perfectly constitutional language. An unconstitutional law is 
not binding; but then it does not rest with a resolution or a law of a 



414 

slate legislature to decide whether an act of Congress be, or be not, 
eouslitntional. An unconstitutional act of Conijiess would not bind 
the people of this district, although they have no legislature to inter- 
fere in their behalf; and, on the other hand, a constitutional law of 
Congress does bind the citizens of every state, although all their 
legislatures should undertake to annul it by act or resolution. The 
venerable Connecticut senator is a constitutional lawyer, of sound 
principles, and enlarged knowledge; a statesman practised and expe- 
rienced, bred in the company of Washington, and holding just views 
upon the nature of our governments. He believed the embargo 
unconstitutional, and so did others; but what then? Who, did he sup- 
pose, was to decide that question? The state legislatures? Certain- 
ly not. No such sentiment ever escaped his lips. Let us follow up, 
sir, this New England opposition to the embargo laws; let us trace 
it, till we discern the principle, which controlled and governed New 
England, throughout the whole course of that opposition. We shall 
then see what simdarity there is between the New England school of 
constitutional opinions, and this modern Carolina school. The gen- 
tleman, I think, read a petition from some single individual, addres- 
sed to the legislature of Massachusetts, asserting the Carolina doc- 
trine — that is, the right of state interference to arrest the laws of the 
union. The late of that petition shows the sentiment of the legisla- 
ture. It met no favor. The opinions of Massachusetts were other- 
wise. They had been expressed, in 1798, in answer to the resolu- 
tions of Virginia, and she did not depart from them, nor bend them 
to the times. Misgoverned, wronged, oppressed as she felt herself 
to be, she still held fast her integrity to the union. The gentleman 
may tind in her proceedings much evidence of dissatisfaction with the 
measures of government, and great and deep dislike to the embargo; 
all this makes the case so much the stronger for her; for, notwith- 
standing all this dissatisfaction and dislike, she claimed no right, still, 
to sever asunder the bonds of the union. There was heat, and there 
was anger, in her political feeling — be it so — her heat or her anger did 
not, nevertheless, betray her into infidelity to the go,vernment. The 
gentleman labors to prove that she disliked the embargo, as much as 
South Carolina dislikes the tariff, and expressed her dislike as strong->I 
ly. Be it so; but did she propose the Carolina remedy f — did she threat- 
en to interfercy bij slate authority, to annul the laws of the unionf That 
is the question for the gentleman's consideration. » 

No doubt, sir, a great majority of the people of New England 
conscientiously believed the embargo law of 1807 unconstitutional; 
as conscientiously, certainly, as the people of South Carolina hold 
that opinion of the tariff. They reasoned thus: Congress has pow- 
er to regulate commerce; but here is a law, they said, stopping all 
conunerce, and stopping it indefinitely. The law is perpetual; that 
is, it is not limited in point of time, and must, of course, continue, 
until it shall be repealed by some other law. -It is as perpetual 
therefore, as the law against treason or murder. Now, is this reg- 
ulating conunerce, or destroying it? Is it guiding, controlling, 
giving the rule to commerce, as a subsisting thing; or is it putting 
an end to it altog(;ther? Nothing is more certain, than that a ma- 
jority in New England, deemed this law a violation of the constitu-- 



415 

tion. The very case required by the gentleman to justify state in- , 
terterence, had then arisen. Massachusetts believed this law to be"' 
" a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power, not grant-" 
ed blithe constitution.'''' Deliberate it was, for it was long continued; 
palpable, she thought it, as no words in the constitution gave the ' 
power, and only a construction, in her opinion most violent, raised 
it; dangerous it was, since it threatened utter ruin to her most im-'; 
portant interests. Here, then, was a Carolina case. How did' 
Massachusetts deal with it? It was, as she thought, a plain, mani-j 
fest, palpable violation of the constitution, and it brought ruin to hef 
doors. Thousands of families, and hundreds of thousands of indi-" 
viduals, were beggared by it. While she saw and felt all this, she 
saw and felt, also, that, as a measure of national policy, it was per- 
fectly futile; that the country was no way benefited by that which' 
caused so much individual distress; that it was efficient only for the 
production of evil, and all that evil inflicted on ourselves. In such 
a case, under such circumstances, how did Massachusetts demean 
herself? Sir, she remonstrated, she memorialized, she addressed 
herself to the general government, not exactly " with the concen- 
trated energy of passion," but with her own strong sense, and the' 
energy of sober conviction. But she did not interpose the arm of 
her own power to arrest the law, and break the embargo. Far from 
it. Her principles bound her to two things; and she followed her 
principles, lead where they might. First, to submit to every con-| 
stitutional law of Congress, and, secondly, if the constitutional va- 
lidity of the law be doubted, to refer that question to the decision of 
the proper tribunals. The first principle is vain and ineffectual 
without the second. A majority of us in New England believed the 
embargo law unconstitutional; but the great question was, and al- 
ways will be, in such cases, who is to decide this? — Who is to judge 
between the people and the government? And, sir, it is quite plain, 
that the constitution of the United States confers on the govern- 
ment itself, to be exercised by its appropriate department, and under 
its own responsibility to the people, this power of deciding ulti- 
mately and conclusively, upon the just extent of its own authority.' 
If this had not been done we should not have advanced a single 
step beyond the old confederation. 

Being fully of opinion that the embargo law was unconstitutional, 
the people of New England were yet equally clear in the opinion — 
it was a matter they did doubt upon — that the question, after all, 
must be decided by the judicial tribunals of the United States. 
Before those tribunals, therefore, they brought the question. Under 
the provisions of the law, they had given bonds, to millions in amount, 
and which were alleged to be forfeited. They suffered the bonds 
to be sued, and thus raised the question. In the oldfashioned way of 
settling disputes, they went to law. The case came to hearing, and 
solemn argument; and he who espoused their cause, and stood up 
for them against the validity of the embargo act, was none other 
than that great man, of whom the gentleman has made honorable men- 
tion, Samuel Dkxteh. He was then, sir, in the fulness of bis know- 
ledge, and the nuituiity of his strength. He had retired from hmg 
and distinguished public service here, to the renewed pursuit of pro- 



416 

fessional duties; carrying with him all that enlargement and expansion, 
all the new strength and force, which an acquaintance with the more 
general subjects discussed in the national councils, is capable of 
adding to professional attainment, in a mind of true greatness and 
comprehension. He was a lawyer, and he was also a statesman. 
He had studied the constitution, when he filled public station, that 
he might defend it; he had examined its principles that he might 
maintain them. — More than all men, or at least as much as any man, 
he was attached to the general government and to the union of the 
states. His feelings and opinions all ran in that direction. A ques- 
tion of constitutional law, too, was, of all subjects, that one which 
was best suited to his talents and learning. — Aloof from technicality, 
and unfettered by artificial rule, such a question gave opportunity 
for that deep and clear analysis, that mighty grasp of principle, 
which so much distinguished his higher efforts. His very statement 
was argument; his inference seemed demonstration. The earnest- 
ness of his own conviction, wrought conviction in others. One was 
convinced, and believed, and assented, because it was gratifying, 
delightful to think, and feel, and believe, in unison with an intellect of 
such evident superiority. 

Mr. Dexter, sir, such as I have described him, argued the New 
England cause. He put into his effort his whole heart, as well as all 
the powers of his understanding; for he had avowed, in the most pub- 
lic manner, his entire concurrence with his neighbours, on the point 
in dispute. He argued the cause, it was lost, and New England 
submitted. The established tribunals pronounced the law constitu- 
tional, cftid New England acquiesced. Now, sir, is not this the 
exact opposite of the doctrine of the gentleman from South Caroli- 
na? According to him, instead of referring to the judicial tribunals, 
we should have broken up the embargo by laws of our own; we 
should have repealed it, quoad New England; for we had a strong, 
palpable, and oppressive case. Sir, we believed the embargo un- 
con.stitutional; but still that was matter of opinion, and who was 'to 
decide it? We thought it a clear case; but, nevertheless, we did not 
take the law into our own hands, because we did not imsh to bring about a 
revolidion, nor to break up the union: for I maintain, that, between sub 
mission to the decision of the constituted tribunals, and revolution, or 
disunion, there is no middle groimd — there is no ambiguous condition, 
half allegiance, and half rebellion. And, sir, how futile, how very 
futile it is, to admit the right of state inteference, and then attempt to 
save it from the character of unlawful resistance, by adding terms of 
qualification to the causes, and occasions, leaving all these qualifica- 
tions, like the case itself, in the discretion of the state governments. 
It must be a clear case, it is said, a deliberate case; a palpable case; a 
dangerous case. But then the state is still left at liberty to decide 
for herself, what is clear, what is deliberate, what is palpable, what 
is dangerous. Do adjectives and epithets avail anything? Sir, the 
human mind is so constituted, that the merits of both sides of a con- 
troversy appear very clear, and very palpable, to those who respec- 
tively espouse them; and both sides usually grow clearer as the con- 
troversy advances. South Carolina sees unconstitutionality in the 
tarifi*; she sees oppression there, also; and she sees danger. Pennsyl- 



417 

vania, with a vision not less sharp, looks at the same tariif, and sees 
no such thing; in it — she sees it all constitutional, all useful, all safe. 
The faith of South Carolina is strengthened by opposition, and she 
now not only sees, but Resolves, that the tariif is palpably unconsti- 
tutional, oppressive and dangerous: but Pennsylvania, not to be be- 
hind her neighbours, and equally willing to strengthen her own faith 
by a confident asseveration. Resolves, also, and gives to every warm 
affirmative of South Carolina, a plain, downright, Pennsylvania neg- 
ative. South Carolina, to show the strength and unity of her opin- 
ion, brings her assembly to a unanimity, within seven voices; Penn- 
sylvania, not to be outdone in this respect more than others, reduces 
her dissentient fraction to a single vote. Now, sir, again, I ask the 
gentleman, what is to be done.'' Are these states both right? Is he 
bound to consider them both right.? If not, which is in the wrong.? 
or rather, which has the best right to decide? And if he, and if I, 
are not to know what the constitution means, and what it is, till 
those two state legislatures, and the twenty-two others, shall agree 
in its construction, what have we sworn to, when we have sworn to 
maintain it? I was forcibly struck, sir, with one reflection, as the 
gentleman went on in his speech. He quoted Mr. Madison's reso- 
lutions, to prove that a state may interfere, in a case of deliberate, 
palpable, and dangerous exercise of a power not granted. The , 
honorable member supposes the tarifl' law to be such an exercise of 
power; and that, consequently, a case has arisen in which the state 
may, if it see fit, interfere by its own law. Now it so happens, nev- 
ertheless, that Mr. Madison deems this same tariff law quite consti- 
tutional. Instead of a clear and palpable violation, it is, in his judg- 
ment, no violation at all. So that, while they use his authority for 
a hypothetical case, they reject it in the very case before them. All 

this, sir, shows the inherent futility I had almost used a stronger : 

word — of conceding this power of interference to the states, and then 
attempting to secure it from abuse by imposing qualifications, of 
which the states themselves are to judge. One of two things is true; 
either the laws of the union are beyond the discretion and beyond 
the control of the states; or else we have no constitution of general 
government, and are thrust back again to the days of the confede- 
racy. 

Let me here say, sir, that n the gentleman's doctrine had been 
received and acted upon in New England, in the times of the em- 
bargo and non-intercourse, we should probably not now have been 
here. The government would very likely, have gone to pieces, and 
crumbled into dust. No stronger case can ever arise than existed ; 
under those laws; no states can ever entertain a clearer conviction 
than the New England states then entertained; and if they had been 
under the infiuence of that heresy of opinion, as I must call it, which 
the honorable member espouses, this union would, in all probabili- 
ty, have been scattered to the four winds. I ask the gentleman, 
therefore, to apply his principles to that case; I ask him to come 
forth and declare, whether, in his opinion, the New England states, 
would have been justified in interfering to break up the embargo sys-^ 
tem, under the conscientious opinions which they held upon it ? Had 
they a right to annul that law ? Does he admit or deny ? If that . 
53 



418 

which is thought palpably unconstitutional in South Carolina, justi- 
fies that state in arresting the progress of the law, toll me, whether 
that which was thought palpably unconstitutional also in Massachu- 
setts, would have justified her in doing the same thing? Sir, I deny 
the whole doctrine. It has not a foot of ground in the constitution 
to stand on. No public man of reputation ever advanced it in Mas- 
sachusetts, in the warmest times, or could maintain himself upon it 
there at any time. 

I wish now, sir, to make a remark upon the^Virginia resolutions of 
1798. I cannot undertake to say how these resolutions were under- 
stood by those who passed them. Their language is not a little in- 
definite. In the case of the exercise by Congress, of a dangerous 
power, not granted to them, the resolutions assert the right, on the 
part of the state, to interfere, and arrest the progress of the evil. 
This is susceptible of more than one interpretation. It may mean 
no more than that the states may interfere by complaint and remon- 
strance; or by proposing to the people an alteration of the Federal 
Constitution. This would all be quite unobjectionable; or, it may 
be, that no more is meant than to assert the general right of revolu 
tion, as against all governments, in cases of intolerable oppression. 
This no one doubts; and this, in my opinion, is all that he who fram- 
ed the resolutions could have meant by it: for I shall not readily 
believe, that he was ever of opinion that a state, under the constitu- 
tion, and in conformity with it, could, upon the ground of her own 
opinion of its unconstitutionality, however clear and palpable she 
might think the case, annul a law of Congress, so far as it should 
operate on herself, by her own legislative power. 

I must now beg to ask, sir, whence is this supposed right of the 
states derived? — where do they find the power to interfere with the 
laws of the union? Sir, the opinion which the honorable gentleman 
maintains, is a notion, founded in a total misapprehension, in my judg- 
ment, of the origin of this government, and of the foundation on 
which it stands. I hold it to be a popular government, erected by 
the people; those who administer it, responsible to the people; and 
itself capable of being amended and modified, just as the people may 
choose it should be. It is as popular, just as truly emanating from 
the people, as the state governments. ^It is created for one purpose; 
the state governments for another. It Has its own powers; they have 
theirs. There is no more authority with them to arrest the operation 
of a law of Congress, than with Congress to arrest the operation of 
their laws. We are here to administer a constitution emanating 
immediately from the people, and trusted, by them, to our administra- 
tion. It is not the creature of the state governments. It is of no 
moment to the argument, that certain acts of the state legislatures 
are necessary to fill our seats in this body. That is not one of their 
original state powers, a part of the sovereignty of the state. It is a 
duty which the people, by the constitution itself, have imposed on 
the state legislatures; and which they might have left to be perfor- 
med elsewhere, if they had seen fit. So they have left the choice of 
President with electors; but all this does not aflect the proposition, 
that this whole government. President, Senate, and House of Rep- 
resentatives, is a popular government. It leaves it still all its popu- 



419 

lar character. The governor of a state, (in some of the states) is 
chosen, not directly by the people, but by those who are chosen by 
the people, for the purpose of performing, among other duties, that 
of electing a governor. Is the government of the state, on that ac- 
count, not a popular government? This government, sir, is the in- 
dependent oftspring of the popular will. It is not the creature of 
state legislatures; nay, more, if the whole truth must be told, the 
people brought it into existence, established it, and have hitherto 
supported it, for the very purpose, amongst others, of imposing cer- 
tain salutary restraints on state sovereignties. The states cannot 
now make war; they cannot contract alliances; they cannot make 
each for itself, separate regulations of commerce; they cannot lay 
imposts; they cannot coin money. If this constitution, sir, be the 
creature of state legislatures, it must be admitted that it has obtain- 
ed a strange control over the volitions of its creators. 

The people, then, sir, erected this government. They gave it a 
constitution, and in that constitution they have enumerated the pow- 
ers which they bestow on it. They have made it a limited govern- 
ment. They have defined its authority. They have restrained it 
to the exercise of such powers as are granted; and all others they 
declare, are reserved to the states, or the people. But, sir, they 
have not stopped here. If they had, they would have accomplished 
but half their work. No definition can be so clear, as to avoid pos- 
sibility of doubt; no limitation so precise, as to exclude all uncertain- 
ty. Who then, shall construe this grant of the people ? Who shall 
interpret their will, where it may be supposed they have left it doubt- 
ful.? With whom do they repose this ultimate right of deciding on 
the powers of the government? Sir, they have settled all this in 
the fullest manner. They have left it, with the government itself, 
in its appropriate branches. . Sir, the very chief end, the main 
design, for which the whole constitution was framed and adopted, was 
to establish a government that should not be obliged to act through 
state agency, or depend on state opinion and state discretion. The 
people had had quite enough of that kind of government, under the 
confederacy. Under that system, the legal action — the application 
of law to individuals, belonged exclusively to the states. Congress 
could only recommend — their^acts were not of binding force, till 
the states had adopted and sanctioned them? Are we in that condi- 
tion still? Are we yet at the mercy of state discretion, and state 
construction ? Sir, if we are, then vain will be our attempt to main- 
tain the constitution under which we sit. 

But, sir, the people have wisely provided, in the constitution it- 
self, a proper, suitable mode and tribunal for settling questions of 
constitutional law. There are, in the constitution, grants of powers 
to Congress; and restrictions on these powers. There are, also, 
prohibitions on the states. Some authority must, therefore, neces- 
sarily exist, having the ultimate jurisdiction to fix and ascertain the 
interpretation of these grants, restrictions, and prohibitions. The 
constitution has itself pointed out, ordained, and established that 
authority. How has it accomplished tliis great and essential end? 
By declaring, sir, that " the cimslilnlUm and the laws of the United 
States, made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the landy 



420 

anylhing in the constxMion or laws of any state to the conira^nj notwith- 
standing.^' 

This, sir, was the first great step. By this the supremacy of the con 
stitution and laws of the United States is dechued. Tiio peojile so 
will it. No state law is to be valid, which comes in conHict with the 
constitution, or any law of the United States passed in pursuance of 
it. But who shall decide this question of interference .'' To v.hom lies 
the last appeal .'' This, sir, the constitution itself decides, also, by de- 
claring, " that the judicial power shall extend to all cases ansing under 
the constitution and laws of the United States.''^ These two provisions, 
sir, cover the whole ground. They are, in truth, the keystone of 
the arch. With these, it is a constitution; without thern, it is a confed- 
eracy. In pursuance of these clear and express provisions. Con- 
gress established, at its very Hrst session, in the judicial act, a mode 
for carrying them into full etfect, and for bringing all questions of 
constitutional power to the final decision of the supreme court. It 
then, sir, became a government. It then had the means of self-pro- 
tection; and, but for this, it would, in all probability, have been now 
among things which are past. Having constituted the government, 
and declared its powers, the people have further said, that since some- 
body must decide on the extent of these powers, the government shall 
itself decide; subject, always, like other popular governments, to its 
responsibility to the people. And now, sir, I repeat, how is it that a 
state legislature acquires any power to interfere ? \\ ho, or what, 
gives them the right to say to the people, " We, who are your agents 
and servants for one purpose, will undertake to decide, that your 
other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, 
have transcended the authority you gave them! " The reply would 
be, I think, not impertinent — " Who made you a judge over anoth- 
er's servants? To their own masters. they stand or fall." 

Sir, I deny this power of state legislatures altogether. It cannot 
stand the test of examination. Gentlemen may say, that in an ex- 
treme case, a state government might protect the people from intol- 
erable oppression. Sir, in such a case, the people might protect 
themselves, without the aid of the state governments. Such a case 
warrants revolution. It must make, when it comes, a law for itself. 
A nullifying act of a state legislature cannot alter the case, nor make 
resistance any more lawful. In maintaining these sentiments, sir, 
I am but asserting the rights of the people. I state what they have 
declared, and insist on their right to declare it. They have chosen 
to repose this power in the general government, and I think it my 
duty to support it, like other constitutional powers. 

For myself, sir, I do not admit the jurisdiction of South Carolina, 
or any other state, to prescribe my constitutional duty; or to settle, 
between me and the people, the validity of laws of Congress, for 
which I have voted. I decline her umpirage. I have not sworn 
to support the constitution according to her construction of its claus- 
es. I have not stipulated, by my oath of office, or otherwise, to 
come under any responsibility, except to the people, and those whom 
they have appointed to pass upon the question, whether laws, suj}- 
ported by my votes, conform to the constitution of the country. And, 
sir, if we look to the general nature of the case, could anything 



421 

have been more preposterous, than to make a government for the 
whole union, and yet leave its powers subject, not to one interpreta- 
tion, but to thirteen, or twenty-four, interpretations? Instead of 
one tribunal, established by all, responsible to all, with power to de- 
cide for all — shall constitutional questions be left to four-and-twenty 
popular bodies, each at liberty to decide for itself, and none bound to 
respect the decisions of others; and each at liberty, too, to give a new 
construction on every new election of its own members? Would 
anything, with such a principle in it, or rather with such a destitu- 
tion of all principle, be fit to be called a government ? No, sir. It 
should not be denominated a constitution. It should be called, rath- 
er, a collection of topics, for everlasting controversy; heads of de- 
bate for a disputatious people. It would not be a government. It . 
would not be adequate to any practical good, nor tit for any country 
to live under. To avoid all possibility of being misunderstood, al- 
low me to repeat again, in the fullest manner, that I claim no pow- 
ers for the government by forced or unfair construction. I admit, 
tl^at it is a government of strictly limited powers; of enumerated, 
specified, and particularized powers; and that whatsoever is not gran- 
ted, is withheld. But notwithstanding all this, and however the grant 
of powers may be expressed, its limit and extent may yet, in some 
cases, admit of doubt; and the general government would be good for 
nothing, it would be incapable of long existing, if some mode had 
not been provided, in which those doubts, as they should arise, might 
be peaceably, but authoritatively, solved. 

And now, Mr. President, let me run the honorable gentleman's 
doctrine a little into its practical application. Let us look at his 
probable modus operandi. If a thing can be done, an ingenious man 
can tell hoiv it is to be done. Now, I wish to be informed how 
this state interference is to be put in practice, without violence, 
bloodshed, and rebellion. We will take the existing case of the 
tariff law. South Carolina is said to have made up her opinion 
upon it. If we do not repeal it, (as we probably shall not,) she will 
then apply to the case the remedy of her doctrine. She will, we 
must suppose, pass a law of her legislature, declaring the several 
acts of Congress, usually called the tariff laws, null and void, so far 
as they respect South Carolina, or the citizens thereof So far, all 
is a paper transaction, and easy enough. But the collector at 
Charleston, is collecting the duties imposed by these tariff laws — 
he, therefore, must be stopped. The collector will seize the goods 
if the tariff duties are not paid. The state authorities will under- 
take their rescue: the marshal, with his posse, will come to the col- 
lector's aid, and here the contest begins. The militia of the state 
will be called out to sustain the nullifying act. They will march, 
sir, under a very gallant leader: for I believe the honorable member 
himself commands the militia of that part of the state. He will 
raise the nullifving act on his standard, and spread it out as his 
banner! It will have a preamble, bearing. That the tariff laws are 
palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violations of the constitution! 
He will proceed, with this banner flying, to the custom-house in 
Charleston: 

" All the while, — 
Sonorous metal, blowing niartiul sounds." ^^ 



422 

Arrived at the custom-house, he will tell the collector that he must 
collect no more duties under any of the tariff laws. Tliis, he will 
be somewhat puzzled to say, by the way, with a grave countenance, 
considering what hand South Carolina, herself, had in that of 1816. 
But, sir, the collector would, probably, not desist, at his bidding. 
He would show him the law of Congress, the treasury instruction, and 
his own oath of office. He would say, he should perform his duty, 
come what come might. Here would ensue a pause: for they say 
that a certain stillness precedes the tempest. The trumpeter would 
hold his breath, awhile, and before all this military array should fall 
on the custom-house, collector, clerks, and all, it is very probable 
some of those composing it, would request of their gallant command- 
er in-chief, to be informed a little upon the point of law; for they 
have, doubtless, a just respect for his opinions as a lawyer, as well 
as for his bravery as a soldier. They know he has read Blackstone 
and the Constitution, as well as Turrene and Vauban. They would 
ask him, therefore, something concerning their rights in this matter. 
They would inquire, whether it was not somewhat dangerous ,to 
resist a law of the United States. What would be the nature of 
their offence, they would wish to learn, if they, by military force 
and array, resisted the execution in Carolina of a law of the United 
States, and it should turn out, after all, that the law was constihilion- 
aVi He would answer, of course, treason. No lawyer could give 
any other answer. John Fries, he would tell them, had learned 
that, some years ago. How, then, they would ask, do you propose 
to defend us.'' We are not afraid of bullets, but treason has a way 
of taking people off, that we do not much relish. How do you 
propose to defend us? " Look at my floating banner," he would 
reply; " see there the nuHifijmg /a jo.'" Is it your opinion, gallant 
commander, they would then say, that if we should be indicted for 
treason, that same floating banner of your's would make a good plea 
in bar.'' " South Carolina is a sovereign state," he would reply. 
That is true — but would the judge admit our plea? "These tariff 
laws," he would repeat, " are unconstitutional, palpably, deliberately, 
dangerously." That all may be so; but if the tribunal should not 
happen to be of that opinion, shall we swing tor it? We are ready 
to die for our country, but it is rather an awkward business, this dy- 
ing without touching the ground! After all, that is a sort oHiemp- 
tax, worse than any part of the tariff. 

Mr. President, the honorable gentleman would be in a dilemma, 
like that of another great general. He would have a knot before 
him which he could not untie. He must cut it witii his sword. He 
must say to his followers, defend yourselves with your bayonets; 
and this is war — civil war. 

Direct collision, therefore, between force and force, is the una- 
voidable result of that remedy for the revision of unconstitutional laws 
which the gentleman contends for. It must ha|)pen in the very first 
case to which it is applied. Is not this the plain result? To resist, 
by force, the execution of a law, generally, is treason. Can the 
courts of the United States take notice of the indulgence of a state 
to commit treason? The common saying, that a stafi; cannot com- 
mit treason herself, is nothing to the purpose. Can she authorise 



423 

others to do it'' If John Fries had produced an act of Pennsyl- 
vania, annulling the law of Congress, would it have helped his case? 
Talk about it as we will, these doctrines go the length of revolution. 
They are incompatible with any peaceable administration of the 
government. They lead directly to disunion and civil commotion; 
and, therefor*, it is, that at their commencement, when they are first 
found to be maintained by respectable men, and in a tangible form, 
I enter my public protest against them all. 

The honorable gentleman argues, that if this government be the 
sole judge of the extent of its own powers, whether that right of 
judging be in Congress, or the Supreme Court, it equally subverts 
state sovereignty. This the gentleman sees, or thinks he sees, al- 
though he carmot perceive how the right of judging, in this matter, if 
left to the exercise of state legislatures, has any tendency to subvert 
the government of the union. — The gentleman's opinion may be, 
that the right ous^hl not to have been lodged with the general govern- 
ment; he may like better such a constitution, as we should have 
under the right of state interference; but I ask him to meet meon 
the plain matter of fact — I ask him to meet me on the constitution 
itself — I ask him if the power is not found there — clearly and visibly 
found there? (Note 3.) 

But, sir, what is this danger, and what the grounds of it? Let it 
be remembered, that the constitution of the United States is not 
unalterable. It is to continue in its present form no longer than the 
people who established it shall choose to continue it. If they shall 
become convinced that they have made an injudicious or inexpedi- 
ent partition and distribution of power, between the state govern- 
ments and the general government, they can alter that distribution 
at will. 

If anything be found in the national constitution, either by origin- 
al provision; or subsequent interpretation, which ought not to be in 
it, the people know how to get rid of it. If any construction be 
established, unacceptable to them, so as to become, practically, a 
part of the constitution, they will amend it, at their own sovereign 
pleasure, but while the people choose to maintain it, as it is; while 
they are satisfied with it, and refuse to change it; who has given, or 
who can give, to the state legislatures, a right to alter it, either by 
interference, construction or otherwise? Gentlemen do not seem to 
recollect that the people have any power to do anything for them- 
selves; they imagine there is no safety for them, any longer than 
they are under the close guardianship of the state legislatures. Sir, 
the people have not trusted their safety, in regard to the general 
constitution, to these hands. They have required other security, 
and taken other bonds. They have chosen to trust themselves, first, 
to the plain words of the instrument, and to such construction as the 
government itself, in doubtful cases, should put on its own powers, 
under their oaths of office, and subject to their responsibility to them: 
just as the people of a state trust their own state governments with 
a similar power. Secondly, they have reposed their trust in the ef- 
ficacy of frequent elections, and in their own power to remove their 
own servants and agents, whenever they see cause. Thirdly, they 
have reposed trust in the judicial power, which, in order that it might 



424 

be trust-worthy, they have made as respectable, as disinterested, 
and as independent as was practicable. Fourthly, they have seen 
fit to rely, in case of necessity, or high expediency, on their known 
and admitted power, to alter or amend the constitution, peaceably, 
and quietly, whenever experience shall point out defects or imper- 
fections. And, finally, the people of the United States have, at no 
time, in no way, directly or indirectly, authorised any state legisla- 
ture to construe or interpret their high instrument of government; 
much less to interfere, by their own power, to arrest its course and 
operation. 

If, sir, the people, in these respects, had done otherwise than they 
have done, their constitution could neither have been preserved, nor 
would it have been worth preserving. And, if its plain provisions 
shall now be disregarded, and these new doctrines interpolated in it, 
it will become as feeble and helpless a being, as its enemies, whether 
early or more recent, could possibly desire. It will exist in every 
state, but as a poor dependent on state permission. It must borrow 
leave to be; and will be, no longer than state pleasure, or state dis- 
cretion, sees fit to grant the indulgence, and to prolong its poor ex- 
istence 

But, sir, although there are fears, there are hopes also. The peo- 
ple have preserved this, their own chosen constitution, for forty years, 
and have seen their happiness, prosperity, and renown, grow with 
its growth, and strengthen with its strength. They are now, gen- 
erally, strongly attached to it. — Overthrown by direct assault, it 
cannot be; evaded, undermined, nullified, it will not be, if we, 
and those who shall succeed us here, as agents and representatives 
of the people, shall conscientiously and vigilantly discharge the two 
great branches of our public trust — faithfully to preserve, and wisely 
to administer it. 

Mr. President, I have thus stated the reasons of my dissent to the 
doctrines which have been advanced and maintained. I am con- 
scious of having detained you and the Senate much too long. I was 
drawn into the debate, with no previous deliberation such as is suited 
to the discussion of so grave and important a subject. But it is a 
subject of which my heart is full, and I have not been willing to sup- 
press the utterance of its spontaneous sentiments. I cannot, even 
now, persuade myself to relinquish it, without expressing, once more, 
my deep conviction, that, since it respects nothing less than the 
union of the states, it is of most vital and essential importance to the 
public happiness. I profess, sir, in my career, hitherto, to have 
kept steadily in view the prosperity and honor of the whole country, 
and the preservation of our federal union. — It is to that union we 
owe our safety at home, and our consideration and dignity abroad 
It is to that union that we are chiefly indebted for whatever makes 
us most proud of our country. That union we reached only by the 
discipline of our virtues in the severe school of adversity. It had 
its origin in the necessities of disordered finance, prostrate com- 
merce, and ruined credit. Under its benign influences, these great 
interests immediately awoke, as from the dead, and sprang forth with 
newness of life. Every year of its duration has teemed with fresh 
proofs of its utility and its blessings; and, although our territory has 



425 

stretched out wider and wider, and our population spread farther and 
farther, they have not outrun its protection or its benefits. It has 
been to us all a copious fountain of national, social, and personal 
happiness. I have not allowed myself, sir, to look beyond the union, 
to see what might lie hidden in the dark recess behind. I have not 
coolly weighed the chances of preserving liberty when the bonds 
that unite us together shall be broken asunder. I have not accus- 
tomed myself to hang over the precipice of disunion, to see whethei, 
with my short sight, I can fathom the depth of the abyss below; nor 
could I regard him as a safe counsellor in the atfairs of this govern- 
ment, whose thoughts should be mainly bent on considering, not 
how the union should be best preserved, but how tolerable might 
be the condition of the people when it shall be broken up and de- 
stroyed. While the union lasts, we have high, exciting, gratifying 
prospects spread out before us, for us and our children. Beyond 
that I seek not to penetrate the veil. God grant that, in my day, 
at least, that curtain may not rise. God grant, that on my vision 
never may be opened what lies behind. — When my eyes shall be 
turned to behold, for the last time, the sun in heaven, may I not see 
him shining on the broken and dishonored fragments of a once glo- 
rious union; on states dissevered, discordant, belligerent; on a land 
rent with civil feuds, or drenched, it may be, in fraternal blood! — 
Let their last feeble and lingering glance, rather behold the gor- 
geous ensign of the republic, now known and honored throughout 
the earth, still full high advanced, its arms and trophies streaming in 
their original lustre, not a stripe erased or polluted, nor a single star 
obscured — bearing for its motto, no such miserable interrogatory, as 
What is all this worthl Nor those other words of delusion and folly, 
JLiberty first, and Union afterwards — but everywhere, spread all over 
in characters of living light, blazing on all its ample folds, as they 
float over the sea and over the land, and in every wind under the 
whole heavens, that other sentiment, dear to every true American 
heart — Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable! 



NOTE I. 



Wednesday, February 21, 1787. 

Congress assembled: Present, as before. Tlie report of a grand committee, eonsiiiling of 
Mr. Dane, Mr. Vanium, Mr. S. M. Mitchell, Mr. Smith, Mr. ("adwalhuler, Mr. Irvine, 
Mr. N. Mitchell, Mr. Forrest, Mr. Grayson, Mr. Blount, Mr. Hull, and Mr. Few; lo whom 
was referred a letter of 14th September, 1786, from J. Dickinson, written at the re(|ucst of 
Commissioners from the states of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New.Icr>ey, and New 
York, assembled at the city of Anna|)iilis, together with a ((jpy of tiie report o( said com 
missioners to the legislatmes of the stales by wlmni tliey were appointed, henig an order of 
the day, was called up, and which is contained in the fjllnwing r<>sohilion; vi/,.. — 

"Congress having had under <'onsideration the letter of.lohn Dickinson, Kscp, Chairman 
of the commissioners, who assembled at Annapolis during the last year; also, the procci-d- 
ings of the said conniiissioners, and entirely coinciding with them, as to the inefficiency of 
the Federal Government, and the necessity of devising such further prcjvisions as shall render 
the same adecjuate to the exigencies of the union, do strongly rccomnund to the dilli'ieilt 
iegislatures to send forward delegates to meet the proposed Couventioii, on the second Mon- 
day, in May next, at the city of Philadelphia." 

54 MM* 



426 
NOTE 2. 

Extract from Mr. Calhoun's Speech, on Mr. Randolph's motion to strike out the 
minimum valuation on Cotton Goods, m the House of Representatives, April, 1816. 

" The debate, heretofdre, on this stibjeet, lias been on the degree of piotection which onght 
to be affonied to our cotton and woollen manufactures; all professing to be friendly to those 
infant establishments, and to be willing to extend to theiu adequate encouragement. The 
present motion assumes a new aspect. It is introduced, professedly, on the ground that 
manufactures ought not to receive any encouragement ; and will, in its operation, leave our 
cotton establishments exposed to the competition of the cotton gootls of the East Indies, 
which, it is acknowledged on all sides, they are not capable of meeting with success, with- 
out the proviso proposed to be stricken out by the motion now umlor discussion. Till the 
debate assumed this new form, he determined to be silent ; participating as he largely did, 
in that General anxiety which is felt, after so long and laborious a session, to return to the 
bosom of our families.' But on a subject of such vital ini|)ortanre, touching as it does, the 
security and permaneni prosperity of our country, he hoped that the House would indulge 
him in a few observations. 

" To give perfection to this state of things, it will be necessary to add, as soon as possi- 
ble, a system of internal improvements, and, at least, such an extension of our navy, as will 
prevent the cutting off our coasting trade. The advantage of each is so striking, as not to 
require illustration, especially after the experience of the late war. 

" He firmly believed that the country is prepared, even to nriaturity, for the introduc- 
tion of manufactures. We have abundance of resources, and things naturally tend, at this 
moment, in that direction. A prosperous commerce has poured an immense amount of 
commercial capital into this country. This capital has, till lately, found occupation in com- 
merce ; but that state of tile world'which transferred it to this country, and gave it active 
employment, has passed away, never to return. Where shall we now find full employment 
for our prodigious amount of tonnage ">. Where markets for the numerous and abundant 
products of our country ! This great body of active capital, which, f(jr the moment, has 
found sufficient emplovment in supplying our markets, exhausted by the war, and measures 
preceding it, must find a new direction : it will not be idle. What channel can it take, but 
that of nianufactures 1 This, if things continue as they are, will be its direction. It will 
introduce an era in our affairs, in many respects highly advantageous, and ought to be 
countenanced by the government. Beside's, we have already surmounted tlie greatest diffi- 
culty that has ever been found in undertakings of this kind. The cotton and woollen man- 
ufactures are not to be introduced — they are already introduced to a great extent ; freeing 
us entirely from the hazards, and, in a great measure, the sacrifices experienced in giving 
the capital of the country a new direction. The restrictive measures, and the war, though 
not intended for that purpose, have, by the necessary operation of things, turned a large 
amount of capital to this new branch of industry. He had often heard it said, both in and 
out of Congress, that tliis effect alone, would indemnify the country for all its losses. So 
high was thfs tone of feeling, when the want of these establishments was practically felt, tliat 
he remembered, during the war, when some question was agitated lespecting the introduc- 
tion of foreign goods, that many then opposed it on the ground of injuring (jur manufac- 
tures. He then said, that war alone furnished sufficient stimulus, and perhaps too much, as 

it would make their growth unnaturally rapid ; but that, on the return of peace, it would 
then be time to show our affection for "them. He, at that time, diil not expect an apathy 
and aversion to the extent whicii is now seen. But it will no doubt be said, if they are so 
far established, and if the situation of the country is so favorable to their growth, where is 
the necessity of affording them protection! It is to put them beyond the reach of contin- 
gency. 

" It has been further asserted that manufactures are the fruitftil cause of pauperism ; and 
England has been referred to, as furnishing conclusive evidence of its truth. For his part, ho 
could perceive no such tendency in them, but the exact contrary, as they furnished new stimu- 
lus and means of subsistence to the laboring classes of the community. We ought not to look 
at the cotton and woollen establishments of Great Britain for the prodigious numbers of poor 
with which her population was disgraced ; causes much more efficient exist. Her poor 
laws, and statutes regulating the prices of labor, with taxes, were tlie real causes. But if 
it must be so ; if the mere fact that England manufactured more than any other country , ex- 
plained tlie cause of her having more beggars, it is just as reasonable to refer her courage, 
spirit, and all her masculine virtues, in whicli she excels all other nations, with a single ex- 
ception — he meant our own — in which we might, without vanity, challenge a preeminence. 
Another objection had been, which he must acknowledge was better founded, that capital 
employed i(i manufacturing produced a greater dependence on the part of the employed, 
than in commerce, navigation, or agriculture. It is certainly an evil, and to be regretted, 
but he did not think it a decisi\e objection to the system ; especially when it had incidental 
political advantages, which, in his opinion, more than counterpoised it. It produced an 



427 

interest stricHy American, as much so as agriculture, in whicli it had the decided advan- 
tage of commerce or navigation. The co\uUry will, from this, derive much advantage. 
Again : it is calculated to bind together more closely our widely spread republic. It will 
greatly increase our mutual dependence and intercourse ; and will, as a necessary conse- 
quence, excite an increased attention to internal improvements, a subject every way so in- 
timately connected with the uitilnate attainment of national strength, and tlie perfection of 
our political institutions." 

Extracts from the Speech of Mr. Calhoun, April, 1816 — On the Direct Tax. 

" In regard to the question, how far manufactures ought to be fostered, Mr. C. said, it 
was the duty of this country, as a means of defence, to encourage the domestic industry of 
the country', more especially that part of it which provides the necessai-y materials for cloth- 
ing and defence. Let us look to the nature of the war most likely to occur. England is in 
the possession of the ocean. No man, however sanguine, can believe tliat we can deprive 
her soon, of her predominance there. That control deprives us of the means of maintaining 
our army and navy cheaply clad. The question relating to manufactures must not depend 
on the abstract principle, that industry left to pursue its own course, will find in its own in- 
terest all the encouragement that is necessary. I lay the claims of the manufacturers en- 
tirely out of view, said Mr. C. ; but, on general principles, without regard to their interest, 
a certain encouragement should be extended, at least to our woollen and cotton manufac- 
tures. 

" This nation," Mr. C. said, " was rapidly changing the character of its industry. — 
When a nation is agricultural, depending for supply on foreign markets, its people may be 
taxed through its imports, almost to the amount of its capacity. The nation was, howev 
er, rapidly becoming, to a considerable extent, a manufacturing nation." 

To the quotations from the speeches and proceedings of the Representatives of South 
Carolina, in Congress, during Mr. Monroe's administration, may be added the following 
extract from Mr. Calhoun's report on roads and canals, submitted to Congress on 7lh of 
January, 1819, from the Department of War : 

" A judicious system of roads and canals, constructed for the convenience of commerce, 
and the transportation of the mail only, without any reference to military operations, is it- 
self among the most efficient means for the ' more complete defence of the United States.' 
Without adverting to the fact that the roads and canals which such a system would require, 
are, with few exceptions, precisely those which would be required for the operations of war; 
Buch a system, by consolidating our union, increasing our wealth and fiscal capacity, would 
add greatly to our resources in war. It is in a state of war when a nation is compelled to 
put all its resources, in men, money, skill, and devotion to country, into requisition, that its 
government realizes in its security, the beneficial effects fi'om a people made prosperous and 
happy by a wise direction of its resources in peace. 

"Should Congress think proper to commence a system of roads and canals, for 'the more 
complete defence of the United States,' the disbursements of the sum appropriated for the 
purpose might be made by the Department of War, under the direction of the President. 
Where incorporate companies are already formed, or the road or canal commenced, under 
the superintendence of a state, it perhaps would be advisable to direct a subscription on the 
part of the United States, on such terms and conditions as might be thought proper." 

NOTE 3. 

The following resolutions of the legislature of Virginia, bear so pertinently and so strongly 
on this point of the debate, that they are thought worthy of being inserted in a note, espe- 
cially as other resolutions of the same body are referred to in the discussion. It will be ob- 
served that these resolutions were unanimously adopted in each House. 

-VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE. 
Extract from the Message of Gov. Tyler, of Virginia, Dec. 4, 1809. 

"A proposition from the state of Pennsylvania is herewith submitted, with Governor Sny- 
der's letter accompanying the same, in which is suggested the propriety of amending the con- 
stitution of the United States, so as to prevent collision between the government of the union 
and the state governments." 

HonsK OF Delegates, Friday, December 15, 1809 

On motion, Ordered, That so much of the Governor's communication as relates to tlie com- 
munication from the governor of Pennsylvania, on the subject of an amendment, proposed by 
the legislature of that state, to the constitution of the United States, be referred to Messrs. 
Peyton, Otey, Cabell, Walker, Madison, Holt, Newton, Parker, Stevenson, Randolph [of 
Amelia,] Cocke, Wyatt, and Ritchie. — Page 25 of the Journal. 



428 

Thu7'silay, January 11, 1810, 

Mr. Peyton, from the committee to whom was reforreH tlial \y.\n nC the governor's com- 
munication which relates to tiie amendment proposed by the state of Pennsylvania, to the 
constitution of the United States, made the following report : 

The committee to whom was referred the connnunication of the governor of Pennsylvania, 
covering certain resolutions of the legislature of that state, proposing an amendment of the 
constitution of the United States, by the appointment of an impartial tribunal to decide dis- 
putes between the States and Federal Judiciary, have had the same under their consideration, 
and aie of opinion, that a tribunal is already provided by the constitution of the United 
Si-a.es, to wit : the Supreme Court, more eminently qualified, from their habiu and duties, 
from the mode of their selection, and from the tenure of tlieir ofiices, to decide the disputes 
aforesaid, in an enlightened and impartial manner, than any other tribunal which could be 
created. 

The members of the Supreme Court are selected from those in the United States who are 
most celebrated for virtue and legal learning, nol nt the will of a single individual, but by 
the concurrent wishes of the President and Senate of the United States; they will, theiefore, 
have no local prejudices and partialities. The duties they have to perform, lead them, ne- 
cessarily, to the most enlarged and accurate acquaintance with the jurisdiction of the f\'d- 
cral and State Courts together, and with tiie admirable symmetry of our government. The 
tenme of tlieir offices enables them to pronounce the sound and correct opinions they may 
have formed, without fear, favor, or partiality. 

The amendment to the constitution proposed by Pennsylvania, seems to be founded upon 
the idea that the Federal Judiciary will, from a lust of power, enlarge tlieir jurisdiction, to 
the total annihilation of the jurisdiction of tlie state courts; that they will exercise their will, 
instead of the law and the constitution. 

This argmnent, if it proves anything, would operate more strongly against the tribunal 
proposed to be created, which promised so little, than against the Supreme Court, which, for 
the reasons given befjre, have everything connei-ted with their appointment calculated to 
ensure confidence. What security have we, were the proposed amendment adopted, that 
this tribunal would not substitute their will and their pleasure in place of the law ? The 
Judiciary are the weakest of tiie three departments of government, and least dangerous to the 
political riglits of the constitution; they hold neither tiie purse nor the sword; and, even to 
enforce their own judgments and decisions, must ultimately depend upon the Executive arm. 
Should the Federal Judiciary, however, unmindful of tlieir weakness, unmindful of the duly 
which they owe to themseUes and their country, become corrupt, and transcend the limits 
of their jurisiiiction, would the proposed amendment oppose even a probable barrier in such 
an improbable state of things'! 

The creation of a tribunal, such as is proposed by Pennsylvania, so far as we are able to 
form an idea of it, from the description given in the resolutions of the legislature of that state, 
would, in the opinitm of your committee, tend rather to invite, than to prevent, collisions 
between the Federal and State Courts. It might also become, in process of time, a serious 
and ilangerous embarrassment to the operations of the general government. 

Resolved, therefore, That the legislature of tiiis state do disappro\e of the amendiuen 
to the constitutiim of the United States, pioposed by the legislature of Pennsylvania. 

Resolved, also. That his excellency the governor, be, and he is hereby, requested to 
transmit forthwith, a copy of the fmegoiiig preamble and resolutions, to each of the sena- 
tors and representatives of this state in Congress, and to the executive of the several statea 
in the union, with a lequest that the same be laid before the legislatures thereof. 

The said resolutions being read a second time, were, on motion, ordered to be referred 
to a committee of the Whole House on the state of the Commonwealth. 

Tuesday, January 23, 1810. 

The House, according to the order of the day, resolved itself into a Committee of the 
Whole House on the state of the Commonwealth, and after sometime spent therein, Mr. 
Speaker resumed the chair, and Mr. Stanard, of Spottsylvania reported that the committee 
ha<l, according to order, had under consideration the preamble anil resolutions of the select 
committee, to whom was referred that part of the governor's communication which relates to 
the amendment proposed to tlie constitution of the United States, by the legislature of Penn- 
sylvania, had gone through with the same, and directed him to report tliem to the Hciiae 
without amendment; wliii;h he handed in at the clerk's table. 

And the (juestion being put on agreeing to tlie said preamble and resolutions, they were 
agreed to by the House unanimously. 

Ordered, That the clerk carry the said preamble and resolutions to the Senate, and de- 
sire tlieir concurrence. 

In Senate — Wednesday, January 24, 1810. 
The preamble and resolutions on the amendment to the constitution of the United States 
proposed by the legislatuie ol" Pennsylvania, by the appointment of an impartial tribmial to 



429 

decide disputes between the State and Federal Judiciary, being also delivered in and twice 
read, on motion, was ordered to be committed to Messrs. Nelson, Currie, Campbell, Up- 
elim-, and Wolfe. 

Friday, January 26. 

Mr. Nelson reported, from the committee to whom was committed the preamble and reso- 
hitions on the amendment proposed by the legislature of Pennsylvania, &c. &c. that the 
committee had, according to order, taken the said preamble, &c. under tlieir consideration, 
and directed him to report them without any amendment. 

And on tlie question being put thereupon tlie same was agreed to unanimously. 



MR. WEBSTER'S LAST REMARKS. 

Mr. Hayne having rejoined to Mr. Webster, especially on the constitutional ques- 
tion — 
Mr. Webster rose, and, in conclusion, said : 

A few words, Mr. President, on this constitutional argument, 
which the honorable gentleman has labored to reconstruct. 

His argument consists of two propositions, and an inference. 
His propositions are — 

1. That the Constitution is a compact between the States. 

2. That a compact between two, with authority reserved to one 
to interpret its terms, would be a surrender to that one, of all pow- 
er whatever. 

3. Therefore, (such is his inference) the general government 
does not possess the authority to construe its own powers. 

Now, sir, who does not see, without the aid of exposition or 
detection, the utter confusion of ideas, involved in this, so elabo- 
rate and systematic argument. 

The constitution, it is said, is a compact between states; the states, 
then, and the states only, are parties to the compact. How comes 
the general government itself a party? Upon the honorable gen- 
tleman's hypothesis, the general government is the result of the 
compact, the creature of the compact, not one of the parties to it. 
Yet the argument, as the gentleman has now stated it, makes the 
government itself one of its own creators. It makes it a party to 
that compact, to which it owes its own existence. 

For the purpose of erecting the constitution on the basis of a 
compact, the gentleman considers the states as parties to that com- 
pact; but as soon as his compact is made, then he chooses to con- 
sider the general government, which is the offspring of that com- 
pact, not its offspring, but one of its parties; and so, being a party, 
has not the power of judging on the terms of compact. Pray, sir, 
in what school is such reasoning; as this taught .'' 

If the whole of the gentleman's main proposition were conceded 
to him, that is to say — if I admit for the sake of the argument, that 
the constitution is a compact between states, the inferences, which 
he draws from that proposition, are warranted by no just reason. 
Because, if the constitution be a compact between states, still, that 
constitution, or that compact, has established a government, with 



430 

certain powers; and whether it be one of those powers, that it shall 
construe and interpret for itself, the terms of the compact, in doubt- 
ful cases, is a question which can only be decided by looking to the 
compact, and inquiring what provisions it contains on this point. 
Without any inconsistency with natural 'reason, the government, 
even thus created, might be trusted with this power of construction. 
The extent of its powers, therefore, must still be sought for in the 
instrument itself. 

If the oid confederation had contained a clause, declaring that 
resolutions of the Congress should be the supreme law of the land, 
any state law or constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, and 
that a committee of Congress, or any other body created by it, 
should possess judicial powers, extending to all cases arising under 
resolutions of Congress, then the power of ultimate decision would 
have been vested in Congress, under the confederation, although 
that confederation was a compact between states; and, for this plain 
reason: that it would have been competent to the states, who alone 
were parties to the compact, to agree, who should decide, in cases 
of dispute arising on the construction of the compact. 

For the same reason, sir, if I were now to concede to the gentle- 
man his principal propositions, viz. that the constitution is a compact 
between states, the question would still be, what provision is made, 
in this compact, to settle points of disputed construction, or contest- 
ed power, that shall come into controversy ? and this question would 
still be answered, and conclusively answered, by the constitution it- 
self While the gentleman is contending against construction, he 
himself is setting up the most loose and dangerous construction.* 
The constitution declares, that the laws of Coiv^ress passed in pur- 
suance ofihe consiitution shall be the supreme laiv of the land. No con- 
struction is necessary here. It declares, also, with equal plainness 
and precision, that the judicial poiver of the United States shall extend 
to every case arisinf^- under the laws of Congress. This needs no con- 
struction. Here is a law, then, which is declared to be supreme; 
and here is a power established, which is to interpret that law. Now, 
sir, how has the gentleman met this.!* Suppose the constitution to 
be a compact, yet here are its terms, and how does the gentleman 
get rid of them.' He cannot argue the seal off the bond, nor the 
words out of the instrument. Here they are — what answer does he 
give to them.' None in the world, sir, except, that the effect of this 
would be to place the states in a condition of inferiority; and be- 
cause it results, from the very nature of things, there being no 
superior, that the parties must be their own judges! Thus closely 
and cogently does the honorable gentleman reason on the words of 
the constitution. The gentleman says, if there be such a power of 
tinal decision in the general government, he asks for the grant of 
that power. Well, sir, I show him the grant — I turn him to the 
very words — I show him that the huvs of Congress are made supreme; 
and that the Judicial power extends, by express words, to the inter- 
pretation of these laws. Instead of answering this, he retreats into 
the general reflection, that it must result /Voix the nature of llimgs, that 
the states, being parties, must judge for themselves. 



431 

I have admitted, that, if the constitution were to be considered as 
the creature of the state governments, it might be modified, inter- 
preted, or construed, according to their pleasure. But, even in that 
case, it would be necessary that they should agree. One, alone, 
could not interpret it conclusively; one, alone, could not construe it; 
one, alone, could not modify it. Yet the gentleman's doctrine is, 
that Carolina, alone, may construe and interpret that compact which 
equally binds all, and gives equal rights to all. 

So then, sir, even supposing the constitution to be a compact 
between the states, the gentleman's doctrine, nevertheless, is not 
maintainable; because, first, the general government is not a party 
to that compact, but a government established by it, and vested by it 
with the powers of trying and deciding doubtful questions; and, 
secondly, because, if the constitution be regarded as a compact, 
not one state only, but all the states, are parties to that compact, 
and one can have no right to fix upon it her own peculiar con- 
struction. 

So much, sir, for the argument, even if the premises of the gen- 
tleman were granted, or could be proved. But, sir, the gentleman 
has failed to maintain his leading proposition. He has not shown, it 
cannot be shown, that the constitution is a compact between state 
governments. The constitution itself, in its very front, refutes that 
idea: it declares that it is ordained and established by the people of 
the United States. So far from saying that it is established by the 
governments of the several states, it does not even say that it is 
established by the people of the several states; but it pronounces that 
it is established by the people of the United States, in the aggregate. 
The gentleman says, it must mean no more than the people of the 
several states. Doubtless, the people of the several states, taken 
collectively, constitute the people of the United States; but it is in 
this, their collective capacity, it is as all tlfe people of the United 
States, that they establish the constitution. So they declare; and 
words cannot be plainer than the words used. 

When the gentleman says the constitution is a compact between 
the states, he uses language exactly applicable to the old confede- 
ration. He speaks as if he were in Congress before 1789 He 
describes fully that old state of thing? then existing. The confede- 
ration was, in strictness, a compact; the states, as states, were parties 
■ to it. We had no other general government. But that was found 
insufficient, and inadequate to the public exigencies. The people 
were not satisfied with it, and undertook to establish a better. They 
undertook to form a general government, which should stand on a 
new basis — not a confederacy, not a league, not a compact between 
states, but a constitution; a popular government, founded in popular 
election, directly responsible to the people themselves, and divided 
into branches, with prescribed limits of power, and prescribed duties. 
They ordained such a government; they gave it the name of a 
co)istitution, and therein they established a distribution of powers 
between this, their general government, and their several state 
governments. When they shall become dissatisfied with this 
distribution, they can alter it. Their own power over th(?ir own 



432 

instrument remains. But until they shall alter it, it must stand aa 
their will, and is equally binding on the general government and on 
the states. 

The gentleman, sir, finds analogy where I see none. He likens 
it to the case of a treaty, in which, there being no common superior, 
each party must interpret for itself, under its own obligation of good 
faith. But this is not a treaty, but a constitution of government, 
with powers to execute itself, and fulfil its duties. 

I admit, sir, that this government is a government of checks and 
balances; that is, the House of Representatives is a check on the 
Senate, and the Senate is a check on the House, and the President 
a check on both. But I cannot comprehend him, or, if I do, I 
totally differ from him, when he applies the notion of checks and 
balances to the interference of different governments. He argues, 
that if we transgress, each state, as a state, has a right to check us. 
Does he admit the converse of the proposition, that we have a right 
to check the states? The gentleman's doctrines would give us a 
strange jumble of authorities and powers, instead of governments 
of separate and defined powers. It is the part of wisdom, I think, 
to avoid this; and to keep the general government and the state 
governments, each in its proper sphere, avoiding, as carefully as 
possible, every kind of interference. 

Finally, sir, the honorable gentleman says, that the states will 
only interfere, by their power, to preserve the constitution. They 
will not destroy it — they will not impair it — they will only save, 
they will only preserve, they will only strengthen it! Ah! sir, this 
is but the old story. All regulated governments, all free govern- 
ments, have been broken up by similar disinterested and well dis- 
posed interference! It is the common pretence. But I take leave 
of the subject. 



REMARKS 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, ON THE APPLICATION 
FOR THE ERECTION OF A BREAKWATER AT NANTUCKET. 1328. 

On the 8th of March, 1828, the House of Representatives passed a Bill entitled " An Act 
making appropriations for Internal Improvements." — This Bill contained appropriations for 
sundry ohjects ; among which were the further continuance of ll>e Cuinherland road, the 
removal of obstructions to navigation, and the erection of piers at the mouths of several riv- 
ers ruiming into Lake Erie and Lake Ontario, the improvement of the navigation of the 
Kennebec River, l)elow Hallovvell, and for a JJghthouse, on the Brandywine shore, in the 
Bay of Delaware. 

There was also in the Bill the following clau.se. " For defruyini^ the expenses inciden 
tal to making examinatiovs and surveys, under the act of the thirtieth of April eighteen 
hundred and ttrenty-four, thirty thousand dollars." — When the Bill came to the Sen- 
ate, it was referred to the Committee of F'inance, who reported, among other amendments, 
the following. — " Strike out, after the word expenses, in the above clause, all that follows, 
and . insert other words, so as that the whole clause, when amended as proposed, should 
read thus — " For defraying the expenses of completing examinations and surveys, already 
commenced and unfinished, under the act of the thirtieth of April 1824, thirty thousand dol- 
lars, provided, that no jjart of this sum shall be expended upon any otiier examinations and 
swveys." 

On this amendment to the bill of the House, the Senate in committee of tlie whole was 
equally divided, and the amendment was carried, by the casting vote of the Vice President. 
The House disagreed to tlie amendment and returned the bill to the Senate, where it was 
again referred to the Committee of Finance, and the chairman of that committee, (Mr. Smith 
of Maryland,) on Friday, the second of May, again reported the bill and amendment, with 
the following remarks and motion : 

" In reporting to tlie Sejiate the disagreement of the House of Representatives to the thir(^ 
and fifth amendments of the Senate to the bill making appropriations for internal improve- 
ments, and referred to tlie Committee on Finance, I desire to state — 

" That the opinion of the committee on the propriety of tlie amendments, remains unchanged ; 
but a.s the item to which the third and principal amendment relates is incorporated in the 
bill providing for other objects, deemed of iiimiediate urgency and great importance to tlie 
public service, which might be materially prejudiced, ami finally defeated at tliis late period 
of the session, by adhering to the amendment, and prolonging die dis;igreement between the 
two Houses : they do not desire to incuj- tliose risks, or to produce the delay incident to a 
renewed and protracted discussion. 

" From tliese considerations, I report tlie bill to the Senate ; and now move that the Senate 
recede from tlieir amendments, and concur in the disagreement of the House of Represen- 
tatives." 

On tliis motion to recede from the amendment, discussion arose, in which Mr. Websteb 
took part. 

55 NN 



434 

The Act of April 30th, 1824, referred to in tlu3 bill, and in the amendment, is in tlie fol- 
lowing words. 

"An Act to procure Uie necessary Surveys, Plans, and Estimates, upon the subject of 

Roads and Canals. 

" Sect. 1. Be it enacted, &c. tliat the President of the United States is hereby authorised 
to cause tlie necessary surveys, plans, and estimates, to be made, of tlie routes of such Roads 
and Canals as he may dceni of national importance, in a commercial or military point of 
view, or necessary for the Uansportation of tlie Mail ; designating, in tlie case of each canal, 
what parts may be made capable of sloojj navigation. The surveys, plans, and estimates, 
for each, when coni])l«>tod, to he laid Ixfore Congress. 

" Sect. 2. And be it further enacted, that, to c;uTy into effect the objects of this act, the 
President be, ami he is licreby autliorised, to employ two or more skilfid civil engineers, 
and such otliccis of the corps of engineers, or who may be detailed to do duty with that corps, 
as he may think proper; and the sum of thirty thousand dollars be, and the same is hereby 
appropriated, to be paid out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." 

In the following ye:us, 1825, 1826, and 1827, appropriations had been made, for the fur- 
ther execution of the powers conferred on the President by this law. 

At the session of 1827-28, a p.titif)n was pending before bodi Houses of Congress for 
the erection of a Breakwater at Nantucket, in regard to which a survey had been made, by 
die Engineer Department, the preceding summer. 

The amendment, proposed by the Senate to the bill from the House, was regarded by the 
friends of internal improvement, as hostile to that whole system. For this reason, and on 
tliis ground, as well as others, it was opposed. Mr. Webster's speech, delivered on this 
occasion, has never been printed, as far as the publishers of this volume can learn. They 
have obtained, however, the Reporter's ii.jtes, from which the following sketch is made. 
They have felt the more desirous of adding this speech, diongli in a very imperfect form, to 
their collection, from the interesting facts which it affords, relative to the Nantucket whale 
fishery ; for which, we are retiuested to say, die author was chiefly indebted to the Honora- 
ble Mr. Burnell, of Nantucket, a member of the Senate of Massachusetts. 

Mr. Webster said, the true question before the Senate, was, as 
he had stated before, whether the law of April 1 824 should be effectu- 
allv repealed, and all further proceedings under it stayed. That law 
would not execute itself Without appropriations to carry on its pur- 
pose and effect, it must be a dead letter. It is now proposed to de- 
clare, that nothing shall be appropriated to any surveys, except those 
already begun. 1n other words, that the whole system of mtcrnal 
improveme'iits shall be arrested, and stop where it is. I do not, 
Mr. President, say that this is an unfair object. Those who deny 
to the government the power of making internal improvements, and 
' we know there arc such, naturally wish to restrain the exercise of the 
power, and prevent it altogether. On this question, public men 
divide; and the general opinion of the community must ultimately 
settle it, one way or the other. ■ r ,■ ^ 

The law of 1824 was passed to avoid the necessity ot particular- 
izinT by law, every survey which should be made by the authority 
of the government. It referred the subject of these preliminary 
surveys'^ within certain defined limits and restrictions, to the exe- 
cutive From tlii.t time the work has gone on, m that manner, un- 
der annual appropriatimis. This amendment is an act of hostdity 
aimed at the whole system. It goes on grounds which he against 
all such measures, under all circumstances. It was not his intention, 
INlr Webster said, to go far into the general subject at present. 



435 

It was well known that the idea of aiding in works of internal im- 
provement, was seriously brought forward in Mr. Gallatin's Report 
in 1809. Events, occurring in the five or six following years, with- 
drew attention from the subject, but it was revived, with new zeal, 
and under new auspices, after the peace. 

He had himself, Mr. Webster said, been in favor of exercising 
the power, from the first time he came into Congress, and his ojjin- 
ion was not altered. He saw evidently now existing, a spirit of 
hostility to these undertakings by government, and as he had already 
said, it must be ultimately decided by the people themselves. 

He should not have troubled the Senate on this occasion, hut 
for a single occurrence. The honorable member from South Caro- 
lina, (Mr. Smith,) in opposing the whole system, had commented 
on some of the plans and projects, for which the aid of government 
was now solicited. Among others, he alluded to the improvements 
contemplated near Nantucket, by a Breakwater. The honorable 
member seemed to think very lightly of this, both with regard to 
its practicability and its importance. He (Mr. W.) professed to 
know no more of the former than the surveys had taught him, but 
he was well informed by competent judges, that the latter was not 
likely to be overrated. A vast commerce passes through the sound 
between the Island of Nantucket and the continent. If an artifi- 
cial harbour be necessary for the accommodation and safety of this 
commerce, the estimated expense is not out of proportion to the 
magnitude of the object. The gentleman from South Carolina had 
said, that near two millions of dollars had been expended on the 
Cumberland road. He (Mr W.) did not mean to underrate the val- 
ue of that great line of communication and transportation, but if we 
look to the amount of transportation through the sound, we shall find 
it very far surpassing that of the road. A vast coasting trade plies 
through this sound, which is a sort of defile, a narrow passage, ob- 
structed with rocks and shoals, and deficient in convenient and safe 
harbours. The anchoring of a floating light vessel in the sound, 
had furnished the means of ascertaining the number of vessels 
which passed through it annually; and perhaps some members 
will be surprised to hear, that that number does not fall short of 
16,000. Nantucket itself, said Mr. W. is a very .striking and pecu- 
liar portion of the national interest. There is a population of eight or 
nine thousand persons, living here in the sea, adding largely every 
year to the amount of national wealth by the boldest and most perse- 
vering industry. They have been twice reduced to the very verge 
of ruin, and yet have recovered by new efforts and untiring toil. In 
1775, when Mr. Burke, in his speech in the house of commons, on 
the resolutions for conciliation with the American Colonies, alluded, 
in such terms of eulogy, to the Nantucket whale fishery, there were 
150 ships engaged in that trade, and spread over every quarter of 
the ocean. There were employed upwards of two thousand men. 
They were even then " found among the tumbling mountains of 
ice, and penetrating into the deepest frozen recesses of Hudson's 
Bay and Davis's Straits. Again, they pierced into the opposite re- 
gion of polar cold, and were at the antipodes engaged under the 
frozen serpent of the South. Places which seemed too remote, and 



436 

romantic objects, for the grasp of national ambition, were but stages 
and resting places in the progress of their victorious industry. 
Whilst some of them drew the line and struck the harpoon on the 
coast of Africa, others run the longitude and pursued their gigantic 
game along the coast of Brazil. No sea but what was vexed by 
their fisheries. No climate that was not witness to their toils."* 

At the end of the war, of the 150 ships but 15 remained, the rest 
had been taken by the enemy. At present, I believe, they have 65 
or 75 ships engaged in the whale fishery, with an aggregate of thir- 
ty thousand tons of tonnage, and of the value of two millions of dol- 
lars. Their history is interesting. An intelligent friend, a citizen of 
the Island, has furnished me with a note of the progress of this branch 
of industry, which is in the highest degree honorable to the spirit of 
enterprise which has animated the people of that place for more 
than a century and a half. They are well entitled to public encour- 
agement. Their harbour is bad, and in addition to the accommoda- 
tion of the coasting trade, and other interests, a breakwater would 
be of the greatest utility to them. I hope their application will not 
be prejudged. Gentlemen will lind the subject to be one full of in- 
terest and importance; and as my colleague intends, ere long, to 
bring it to the consideration of the Senate, I hope it may have a 
fair hearing. 



NOTE. 



The Island of Nantucket was settled from the County of Essex in Mas- 
sachusetts, about 1660. Thirty years afterwards, the whale fishery com- 
menced, and was, at first, carried on by boats from the shore. This mode 
of conducting the business reached its height in 17-26, in which year eighty 
or ninety Avhales were brought to the shore, and of these, thirteen are said 
to have been taken in one day. Within thirty or forty years after this, the 
boat fishing fell oti" as the whales drew off from the shore, and vessels 
were required to pursue them. Some small sloojis, of thirty or forty tons 
each, had been employed as early as 1715. During the seventy years that 
the whales were taken in boats, not a single white man lost his life in pur- 
suit of them. The whale taken from the shore was the right whale, as 
the spermaceti does not visit soundings. 

Soon after vessels were employed in this business, a northerly gale drove 
one of them from the coast, and when it abated, spermaceti whales weje 
discovered, and one was taken and brought into port. This was, probably, 
the first of the kind ever taken; and being lound more valuable than the 
right whale, the adventurous whalemen were induced to launch into the 
deep, and a new direction was thereupon given to the business. There 
were, in 1730, nearly thirty sail, of from 30 to 50 tons, employed, and they 
obtained annually, about 3,700 barrels of oil, which, until 1745, was shipped 
to Boston and tliere sold. In tlu> last mentioned year, a voyage was made 
to London, and after that a trade was carried on with that port. In 1746 

* Burke's Speech, 1775. 



437 

the pursuit of the whale had extended to Davis's Straitsj and in J765 
to the Western Islands — (A/ores.) 

Between the years 1755 and 176S, ten sail were either lost or taken, by 
the French. There were, in 1770, 120 sail, of from 75 to 1 10 tons, engaged 
in the trade, and 18,000 barrels of oil were obtained annually. And be- 
tween 1772 and 1775 there were 150 sail, of from 90 to 180 tons, upin the 
coasts of Guinea, Brazil, West Indies, &c. and 30,000 barrels of oil were an- 
nually obtained, which sold, in the London market, for £44 to £45 — making 
an aggregate of £167,000. There were, at this time, 2,200 seamen em- 
ployed in fishing, and 220 in the London trade. During the Revolutionary 
War the whale fishery was prostrated, and the inliabitants of the island 
sufliired much in their property; and toward the close of it, gn.-at distress 
began to appear among them. In 1783, of their large fleet, they had re- 
maining, but 7 sail to Brazil of 100 to 150 tons — 5 to the Coast of Guinea, 
and 7 to the West Indies; and they obtained but about three thousand 
barrels of oil. 

The British government availed themselves of the depressed condition 
of the fishery, and, in 1784, exacted a duty of£18.3 sterling per ton, which 
almost entirely destroyed the market. Strong inducements were held out 
to the inhabitants of Nantucket to remove to Halifax, and establish them- 
selves there. In 1786-7 a considerable number removed to that place, 
but soon abandoned it and returned. After this period, the fishery grad- 
ually advanced; and, in those seas where the Avhale had been taken for 
years, viz. the Western Islands, the coast of Guinea, Brazils, and some less 
frequented coasts, the business Avas diligently pursued until, in 1788, stim- 
ulated by large bounties, a ship was fitted from London for the Pacific. 
In that year, the first Spermaceti, which was ever vexed by man in that 
ocean, yielded to the skill of the only American on board that vessel, a na- 
tive of Nantucket, now living in that place. The first vessel which ever 
went from that town into that ocean commenced her voyage in 1791. The 
Spermaceti whale continued to be taken on the coasts of Chili and Peru, 
and the fleet to augment, until the Avar of 1812 put a stop to the pursuit. 
At that time, there were employed in the business about 40 ships, of 200 to 
250 tons each. One half of this number fell into the hands of the enemy; 
and at the peace of 1815, twenty ships only, from that port, remained to 
continue the fishery. These were soon fitted, and speedily took thdr de- 
parture for either the coasts of Brazil, Chili, or Peru. The increase of 
the business soon spread a large fleet on the last mentioned coast, and the 
whale became exceedingly scarce. They were, in fact, driven by continued 
pursuit from their accustomed track. 

It became necessary to explore regions unfrequented, even to procure 
cargoes for vessels already in the Pacific. Accordingly, in the year 1819, 
steering westward to the longitude of 90 to 100, Avhales were again found, 
and large quantities of oil procured in a short time. This "off shore 
ground," as it was called, being quite limited, was soon crowded with ships, 
and other haunts of the whale must be found. In 1821, therefore, the first 
ship Avhich ever adventured, to the north, as it is called, to the " Japan 
Coast," entered those seas; and her great success richly icpaid her enterpri- 



438 

sing owners. She belonged to Nantucket, Since that period, the princi- 
pal part of the spermaceti oil imptirted into this country, has been procured 
northward of the Sandwich Islands, in various degrees of latitude and lon- 
gitude — in an ocean almost entirely unexplored, and in which there have 
been already discovered, by these navigators, a large number of most dan- 
gerous reefs and shoals. 

The history of the whale fishery from New Bedford, is comprehended, in 
all important respects, in the foregoing statement as to Nantucket. The 
fishery of the former has always followed that of the latter. Its local 
advantages are superior, and have enabled it already to maintain a power- 
ful rivaiship in the trade. 

In 1827, New BeiUord had engaged in whale fishing, 68 Ships and 17 
Brigs. There were imported of Spermaceti oil 43,533 bbls — of Whale oil, 
22,065 bbls — Bone (whale), 169,581 pounds. 

Nantucket had engaged in the fishery, 62 Ships and 1 Brig. Spermaceti 
oil imported 32,190 bbls.— Whaleoil, 2,000 bbls.— Bone, 12,000 lbs. 

There were imported into all other ports : — in New York, Connecticut, 
Rhode Island, &c. of Spermaceti oil 16,467 bbls.— Whaleoil, 25,000 bbls. 

The Shipsengaged in the Spermaceti fishing in the Pacific, are from 300 
to 480 tons each, and are manned with 21 to 30 men. In 1827 the value 
of oil averaged about 70 cts. for Spermaceti, and 30 cents for whale, and 50 
cents for bone. 

This little spot is the nucleus of the whale fishing of the world. A busi- 
ness of so much importance, and so rapidly increasing, would seem to deserve 
attention, and such aid as is consistent with other great branches of nation- 
al industry and enterprise. 



INTRODUCTORY LECTURE, 



READ TO THE BOSTON MECHANICS' INSTITUTION, AT THE OPEN- 
ING OF THE COURSE OF LECTURES. NOV. 12, 1S28. 



I APPEAR before you, gentlemen, for the performance of a duty, 
which is, in so great a degree, foreign from my habitual studies and 
pursuits, that it may be presumptuous in me to hope for a creditable 
execution of the task. But I have not allowed considerations of 
this kind to weigh against a strong and ardent desire to signity my 
approbation of the objects, and my conviction of the utility, of this 
institution; and to manifest my prompt attention to whatever others 
may suppose to be in my power, to promote its respectability and to 
further its designs. 

The Constitution of the Association declares its precise object to 
be, " Mutual Instruction in the Sciences, as connected with the 
Mechanic Arts." 

The distinct purpose is to connect science, more and more, with 
art; to teach the established, and invent new, modes of combining 
skill with strength; to bring the power of the human understanding 
in aid of the physical powers of the human frame; to facilitate the 
cooperation of the mind with the hand; to augment convenience, 
lighten labor, and mitigate toil, by stretching the dominion of mind, 
farther and farther, over the elements of nature, and by making those 
elements, themselves, submit to human rule, follow human bidding, 
and work together for human happiness. 

The visible and tangible creation into which we are introduced 
at our birth, is not, in all its parts, fixed and stationary. Motion, or 
change of place, regular or occasional, belongs to all or most of the 
things which are around us. Animal life everywhere moves; the 
earth itself has its motion, audits complexities of motion; the ocean 
heaves and subsides; rivers run lingering or rushing, to the sea; and 
the air which we breathe moves and acts with mighty power. Mo- 
tion, thus pertaining to the physical objects which surround us, is 
the exhaustless fountain, whence philosophy draws the means, by 
which, in various degrees, and endless forms, natural agencies and 
the tendencies of inert matter, are brought to the succour and assis- 



440 

tance of human strength. It is the object of mechanical contrivance 
to modify motion, to produce it in new forms, to direct it to new pur- 
poses, to multiply its uses, — by means of it to do better, that which 
human strength could do without its aid, — and to perform that, also, 
which such strength, unassisted by art, could not perform. 

Motion itself is but the result of force; or, in other words, force 
is defined to be whatever tends to produce motion. The operatioji 
of forces, therefore, on bodies, is the broad field, which is open for 
that philosophical examination, the results of which it is the business 
of mechanical contrivance to apply. The leading forces or sources 
of motion are, as is well known, the power of animals, gravity, heat, 
the winds, and water. There are various others of less power, or 
of more diflicult application. Mechanical philosophy, therefore, may 
be said to be that science which instructs us in the knowledge of 
natural moving powers, animate or inanimate; in the manner of 
modifying those powers, and of increasing the intensity of some 
of them by artificial means, such as heat and electricity; and in ap- 
plying the varieties of force and motion, thus derived from natural 
agencies, to the arts of life. This is the object of mechanical phi- 
losophy. None can doubt, certainly, the high importance of this 
sort of knowledge, or fail to see how suitable it is to the elevated 
rank and the dignity of reasoning beings. Man's grand distinction 
is his intellect, his mental capacity. It is this, which renders him 
highly and peculiarly responsible to his Creator. It is this, on ac- 
count of which the rule over other animals is established in his 
hands; and it is this, mainly, which enables him to exercise dominion 
over the powers of nature, and to subdue them to himself 

But it is true, also, that his own animal organization gives him su- 
periority, and is among the most wonderful of the works of God on 
earth. It contributes to cause, as well as prove, his elevated rank 
in creation. His port is erect, his face toward heaven, and he is 
furnished with limbs which are not absolutely necessary to his sup- 
port or locomotion, and which are at once powerful, flexible, capable 
of innumerable modes and varieties of action, and terminated by an 
instrument of wonderful, heavenly workmanship, — the human hand. 
This marvellous physical conformation, gives man the power of act- 
ing, with great effect, upon external objects, in pursuance of the 
suggestions of his understanding, and of applying the results of his 
reasoning power to his own purposes. Without this particular for- 
mation, he would not be man, with whatever sagacity he had been 
endowed. No bounteous grant' of intellect, were it the pleasure of 
heaven to make such grant, could raise any of the brute creation to 
an equality with the human race. Were it bestowed on the Levia- 
than, he must remain, nevertheless, in the element where alone he 
could maintain his physical existence. He would still be but the in- 
elegant, misshapen inhabitant of the ocean, " wallowing unwieldy, 
enormous in his gait." Were the Elephant made to possess it, it 
would but teach him the deformity of his own structure, the un- 
loveliness of his frame, though " the hugest of things," his disability 
to act on external matter, and the degrading nature of his own phys- 
ical wants, which lead hhn to the deserts, and give him for his favorite 



441 

home the torrid plains of the tropics. It was placing the king of 
Babylon sufficiently out of the rank of human beings, though he car- 
ried all his reasoning faculties with him, when he was sent away, to 
eat grass like an ox. And this may properly suggest to our conside- 
ration, what is undeniably true, that there is hardly a greater blessing 
conferred on man than his natural wants. If he had wanted no 
more than the beasts, who can say how much more than they, he 
would have attained? Does he associate, does he cultivate, does 
he build, does he navigate.^ The original impulse to all these, lies 
in his wants. It proceeds from the necessities of his condition, and 
from the efforts of unsatisfied desire. Every want not of a low 
kind, physical as well as moral, which the human breast feels, and 
which brutes do not feel and cannot feel, raises man, by so much, 
in the scale of existence, and is a clear proof, and a direct instance, 
of the favor of God towards his so much favored human offspring. 
If man had been so made as to have desired nothing, he would have 
wanted almost everything worth possessing. 

But doubtless the reasoning faculty, the mind, is the leading char- 
acteristic attribute of the human race. By the exercise of this, he 
arrives at the knowledge of the properties of natural bodies. This 
is science, properly and emphatically so called. It is the science 
of pure mathematics; and in the high branches of this science lies 
the true sublime of human acquisition. If any attainment deserve 
that epithet, it is the knowledge, which, from the mensuration of the 
minutest dust of the balance, proceeds on the rising scale of mate- 
rial bodies, everywhere weighing, everywhere measuring, every- 
where detecting and explaining the laws of force and motion, pene- 
trating into the secret principles which hold the universe of God 
together, and balancing world against world, and system against 
system. When we seek to accompany those, who pursue their 
studies at once so high, so vast and so exact; when we arrive at the 
discoveries of Newton, which pour in day, on the>«v'orks of God, as 
if a second ^ai for light had gone forth from his own mouth; — when, 
further, we attempt to follow those, who set out where Newton 
paused, making his goal their starting place, and proceeding with 
demonstration upon demonstration, and discovery upon discovery, 
bring new worlds, and new systems of worlds within the limits of 
the known universe, failing to learn all only because all is infinite; 
however we say of man, in a:dmiration of his physical structure, 
that " in form and moving he is express and adnnrable," it is here, 
and here without irreverence, we may exclaim, " in apprehension how 
like a God ! " The study of the pure mathematics will of course 
not be extensively pursued in an institution, wliich, like this, has a 
direct practical tendency and aim. But it is still to be remembered, 
that pure mathematics lie at the foundation of mechanical philosophy, 
and that it is ignorance only which can speak or think of that sub- 
lime science as useless research or barren speculation. 

It has already been said that the general and well known agents, 
usually regarded as the principal sources of mechanical powers, 
are, gravity, acting on solid bodies, the fall of water, which is but 
gravity acting on fluids, air, heat, and animal strength. For the 

56 



442 

useful direction and application of the four first of these, that is, of 
all of them which belong to inanimate nature, some intermediate ap- 
paratus, or contrivance, becomes necessary; and this apparatus, 
whatever its form, is a machine. A machine is an invention for the 
application of motion, either by changing the direction of the moving 
power, or by rendering a body in motion capable of communicating 
a motion greater or less than its own to other bodies, or by enabling 
it to overcome a power of greater intensity or force than its own. 
And it is usually said that every machine, however apparently com- 
plex, is capable of being resolved into some one or more of those 
single machines, of which, according to one mode of description, 
there are six, and according to another, three, called the mechanical 
powers. But because machinery, or all mechanical contrivance, is 
thus capable of resolution into a few elementary forms, it is not to 
be inferred that science, or art, or both together, though pressed 
with the utmost force of human genius, and cultivated by the last 
degree of human assiduity, will ever exhaust the combinations into 
which these elementary forms may be thrown. An indefinite, 
though not an infinite reach of invention may be expected; but in- 
definite, also, if not infinite, are the possible combinations of ele- 
mentary principles. The field, then, is vast and unbounded. We 
know not, to what yet unthought of heights the power of man over 
the agencies of nature may be carried. We only know, that the 
last half century has witnessed an amazingly accelerated progress 
in useful discoveries, and that at the present moment, science and 
art are acting together, with a new companionship, and with the 
most happy and striking results. The history of mechanical philos- 
ophy, is, of itself, a very interesting subject, and will doubtless be 
treated in this place fully, and methodically, by stated lecturers. 

It is a part of the history of man, which, like that of his domestic 
habits and daily occupations, has been too unfrequently the subject 
of research; having been thrust aside by the more dazzling topics 
of war and political revolutions. We are not often conducted by 
historians within the houses or huts of our ancestors, as they were 
centuries ago, and made acquainted with their domestic utensils 
and domestic arrangements. We see too little, both of the conve- 
niences and inconveniences of their daily and ordinary life. T4iere 
are, indeed, rich materials for interesting details on these par- 
ticulars, to be collected from the labors of Goguet and Beckmann, 
Henry and Turner; but, still, a thorough and well written history of 
those inventions in the mechanic arts, which are now commonly 
known, is a dcsidcratmn in literature. 

Human sagacity, stimulated by human wants, seizes first on the 
nearest natural assistant. The power of his own arm, is an early 
lesson, among the studies of primitive man. This is animal 
strength; and from this he rises to the conception of employing, for 
his own use, the strength of other animals. A stone, impelled by 
the power of his arm, he finds will produce a greater effect, than the 
arm itself; this is a species of mechanical power. The effect re- 
sults from a combination of the moving force with the gravity of a 
heavy body. The limb of a tree is a rude, but powerful instrument; 



443 

it is a lever. And the mechanical powers heing all discovered, like 
other natural qualities, by induction, (I use the word as Bacon used 
it,) or experience, and not by any reasoning a priori, their progress 
has kept pace with the general civilisation and education of nations. 
The history of mechanical philosophy, while it strongly illustrates, 
in its general results, the force of the human mind, exhibits, in its 
details, most interesting pictures of ingenuity struggling with the 
conception of new combinations, and of deep, intense, and powerful 
thought, stretched to its utmost to find out, or deduce, the general 
principle from the indications of particular facts. We are now so 
far advanced beyond the age when the principal, leading, important 
mathematical discoveries were made, and they have become so much 
matter of common knowledge, that it is not easy to feel their impor- 
tance, or be justly sensible what an epoch in the history of science 
each constituted. The half frantic exultation of Archimedes, when 
he had solved the problem respecting the crown of Hiero, was on 
an occasion and for a cause certainly well allowing very high joy. 
And so also was the duplication of the cube. 

The altar of Apollo at Athens was a square block, or cube, and 
to double it required the duplication of the cube. This was a 
process involving an unascertained mathematical principle. It was 
quite natural, therefore, tbat it should be a traditional story, that 
by way of atoning for some afiVont to that god, the oracle command- 
ed the Athenians to double his altar; an injunction, we know, which 
occupied the keen sagacity of the Greek geometricians for more 
than half a century, before they were able to obey it. It is to the 
great honor, however, of this inimitable people, the Greeks, a peo- 
ple whose genius seems to have been equally fitted for the investi- 
gations of science and the works of imagination, that the immortal 
Euclid, centuries before our era, composed his Elements of Geome- 
try; a work which, for two thousand years, has been, and still con- 
tinues to be, a text book for instruction in that science. 

A history of mechanical philosophy, however, would not begin 
with Greece. There is a wonder beyond Greece. Higher up in 
the annals of mankind, nearer, far nearer, to the origin of our race, 
out of all reach of letters, beyond the sources of tradition, beyond 
all history, except what remains in the nionuments of her own art, 
stands Egypt, the mother of nations! Egypt! Thebes! the Laby- 
rinth! the Pyramids! Who shall explain the mysteries, which these 
names suggest? The Pyramids! Who can inform us, whether 
it was by mere numbers, and patience, and labor, aided perhaps by 
the simple lever, or if not, by what forgotten combination of power, 
by what now unknown machines, mass was thus aggregated to mass, 
and quarry piled on quarry, till solid granite seemed to cover the 
earth and reach the skies.'' 

The ancients discovered many things, but they left many thing.s 
also to he discovered; and this, as a general truth, is what our posteri-. 
ty, a thousand years hence, will be able to say, doubtless, when wo 
and our generation shall be recorded also among the ancients. For, 
indeed, God seems to have proposed his material universe, as a 
standing, perpetual study to his intelligent creatures; where, ever 



444 

learning, they can yet never learn all; and if that material universe 
shall last till man shall have discovered all that is unknown, but which, 
by the progressive improvement of his faculties he is capable of 
knowing, it will remain through a duration beyond human measure- 
ment, and beyond human comprehension. 

The ancients knew nothing of our present system of arithmetical 
notation; nothing of algebra, and of course nothing of the impor- 
tant application of algebra to geometry. They had not learned 
the use of logarithms, and were ignorant of fluxions. They had not 
attained to any just mode for the mensuration of the earth; a matter 
of great moment to astronomy, navigation, and other branches of 
useful knowledge. It is scarcely necessary to add, that they were 
ignorant of the great resuUs which have followed the developement 
of the principle of gravitation. 

In the useful and practical arts, many inventions and contrivan- 
ces, to the production of which the degree of ancient knowledge 
would appear to us to have been adequate, and which seem quite 
obvious, are yet of late origin. The application of water, for exam- 
ple, to turn a mill, is a thing not known to have been accomplished 
at all in Greece, and is not supposed to have been attempted at 
Rome, till in or near the age of Augustus. The production of the 
same effect by wind, is a still later invention. It dates only in the 
seventh century of our era. The propulsion of the saw, by any 
other power than that of the arm, is treated as a novelty in England, 
so late as in the iniddle of the sixteenth century. The Bishop of 
Ely, Ambassador tiom the Queen of England to the Pope, says, 
" he saw, at Lyons, a saw-mill driven witii an upright wheel, and the 
water that makes it go is gathered into a narrow trough, which deliv- 
ereth the same water to the wheels. This wheel hath a piece of 
timber put to the axletree end, like the handle of a brock, (a hand 
organ,) and fastened to the end of the saw, which being turned with 
the force of water, hoisteth up and down the saw, that it continually 
eateth in, and the handle of the same is kept in a rigall of wood, 
from severing. Also the timber lieth, as it were upon a ladder, 
which is brought by little and little to the saw by another vice." 
From this description of the primitive power-saw, it would seem 
that it was probably fast only at one end, and that the brock and 
rigall performed the part of the arm, in the common use of the 
handsaw. 

It must always have been a very considerable object for men to 
possess, or obtain, the power of raising water, otherwise than by 
mere manual labor. Yet nothing like the common suction pump 
has been found among rude nations. It has arrived at its present 
state only by slow and doubtful steps of improvement; and, indeed, 
in that present state, however obvious and unattractive, it is some- 
thing of an abstruse and refined invention. It was unknown in 
China, until Europeans visited the " Celestial Empire;" and is still 
unknown in other parts of Asia, beyond the pale of European settle- 
ments, or the reach of European communication. The Greeks and 
Romans are supposed to have been ignorant of it, in the early times 
of their history; and it is usually said to have come from Alexan- 



445 

dria, where physical science was much cultivated by the Greek 
school, under the patronage of the Ptolemies. 

These iew and scattered historical notices, gentlemen, of impor- 
tant mventions, have been introduced only for the purpose of sua- 
gesting that there is much which is both curious and instructive tn 
the history ot mechanics; and that many things which to us, in our 
state of knowledge, seem so obvious as that we should think they 
would at once force themselves on men's adoption, have, neverthe- 
less, been accomplished slowly and by painful efforts 

But if the history of the progress of the mechanical arts be in- 
teresting, still more so, doubtless, would be the exhibition of their pres- 
ent state and a full display of the extent to which they are now ear- 
ned 1 his held IS much too wide even to be entered, on this occasion 

1 he briefest outline even, would exceed itslimits; and the whole subject 
will regularly fVill to hands much more able to sustain it. The slight- 
est glance however, must convince us that mechanical power and 
mechanical skill, as they are now exhibited in Europe and America 
mark an epoch in human history, worthy of all admiration. Ma- 
chinery IS made to perform what has formerly been the toil of human 
hands, to an extent that astonishes the most sanguine, with a degree 
of power to which no number of -human arms is equal, and with such 
precision and exactness as almost to suggest the notion of reason 
and intelligence in the machines themselves. Every natural agent 
IS put unrelentingly to the task. The winds work, the waters work, 
the elasticity of metals work: gravity is solicited into a thousand 
new forms of action: levers are multiplied upon levers: wheels revolve 
on the peripheries of other wheels; the saw and the plane are tor- 
tured into an accommodation to new uses, and, last of all, with 
inimitable power, and " with whirlwind sound," comes the potent 
agency of steam. In comparison with the past, what centuries of 
improvement has this single agent comprised, in the short compass 
of hlty years ! Everywhere practicable, everywhere efficient, it 
tias an arm a thousand times stronger than that of Hercules, and to 
Which human ingenuity is capable of fitting a thousand times as 
many hands as belonged to Briareus. Steam is found, in triumph- 
an operation, on the seas; and under the influence of its strong pro 
pufsion, the gallant ship, ^ ^ 

" Against the wind, against the tide 
Still steadies, with an upright keel." 

It is on the rivers, and the boatman may repose on his oars; it is in 
highways, and begins to exert itself along 'the courses of land con- 
veyance; it IS at the bottom of mines, a thousand feet below the earth's 
surface; It IS in the mill, and in the workshops of the trades. It rows, 
pumps. It excavates, it carries, it draws, it lifls,it hammers, it spins 

of artisans, " Leave oft your manual labor, give over your bodily 

relax f K ^e toil,-with no muscle to grow weary, no nerve to' 

r^lTltU^u \^''- ^r^ *^i"tness." What further improvements 

may still be made m the use of this astonishing power, it is impo 



oo 



sible to know, and it were vain to conjecture. What we do know, is, 
that it has most essentially altered the face of affairs, and that no 
visible limit yet appears beyond which its progress is seen to be im- 
possible. If its power were now to be annihilated, if we were to 
miss it on the water and in the mills, it would seem as if we were 
going back to rude ages. 

This society, then, gentlemen, is instituted for the purpose of further 
and further applying science to the arts, at a time when there is 
much of science to be applied. Philosophy and the Mathematics have 
attained to high degrees, and still stretch their wings, like the Eagle. 
Chymistry, at the same time, acting in another direction, has made 
equally important discoveries, capable of a direct application to the 
purposes of life. Here, again, within so short a period as the lives 
of some of us, almost all that is known has been learned. And 
while there is this aggregate of science, already vast, but still rapid- 
ly increasing, offering itself to the ingenuity of mechanical contri- 
vance, there is a corresponding demand for every work and inven- 
tion of art, — produced by the wants of a rich, an enterprising and 
an elegant age. Associations like this, therefore, have materials 
to work upon, ends to work for, and encouragement to work. 

It may not be improper to suggest, that not only are the general 
circumstances of the age favorable to such institutions as this, 
but that there seems a high degree of propriety that one or more 
should be established here, in the metropolis of New England. In 
no other part of the country, is there so great a concentration of 
mechanical operations. Events have given to New England the 
lead, in the great business of domestic manufactures. Her thick- 
ened population, her energetic free labor, her abundant falls of wa- 
ter, and various other causes, have led her citizens to embark, with 
great boldness, into extensive manufactures. The success of their 
establishments depends, of course, in no small degree, upon the per- 
fection to which machinery may be carried. Improvement in this, 
therefore, instead of being left to chance or accident, is justly re- 
garded as a fit subject of assiduous study. The attention of our 
community is, also, at the present moment, strongly attracted towards 
the construction of canals, railways, dry docks, and other important 
public works. Civil engineering is becoming a profession, offering 
honorable support and creditable distinction to such as may qualify 
themselves to discharge its duties. Another interesting fact is before 
us. New taste and a new excitement are evidently springing up 
in our vicinity in regard to an art, which, as it unites in a singular 
degree, utility and beauty, affords inviting encouragements to genius 
and skill. I mean Architecture. Architecture is military, naval, 
sacred, civil, or domestic. Naval architecture, certainly, is of the 
hiohest importance to a commercial and navigating people, to say 
nothing of its intimate and essential connexion, with the means of na- 
tional defence. This science should not be regarded as having al- 
ready reached its utmost perfection. It seems to have been sometime 
in a "course of rapid advancement. The building, the rigging, the 
navisrating of ships have, to every ones conviction, been subjects 
of great Tniprovement within the last fifteen years. And where, 



447 

rather than in New England, may still further improvements be 
looked for? Where is ship building either a greater business, or 
pursued with more skill and eagerness ? 

In civil, sacred, and domestic architecture, present appearances 
authorise the strongest hopes of improvement. These hopes rest, 
among other things, on unambiguous indications of the growing 
prevalence of a just taste. The principles of architecture are found- 
ed in nature, or good sense, as much as the principles of epic poet- 
ry. The art constitutes a beautiful medium, between what belongs 
to mere fancy, and what belongs entirely to the exact sciences. In 
its forms and modifications, it admits of infinite variation, giving 
broad room for invention and genius; while, in its general princi- 
ples, it is founded on that which long experience and the concurrent 
judgment of ages have ascertained to be generally pleasing. Cer- 
tain relations, of parts to parts, have been satisfactory to all the culti- 
vated generations of men. These relations constitute what is called 
proportion, and this is the great basis of architectural art. This es- 
tablished proportion is not io he followed mere\y because it is ancient, 
but because its use, and the pleasure which it has been found capa- 
ble of giving to the mind, through the eye, in ancient times, and 
modern times, and all civilized times, prove that its principles are 
well founded, and just; in the same manner that the Iliad is proved, 
by the consent of all ages, to be a good poem. 

Architecture, I have said, is an art that unites, in a singular man- 
ner, the useful and the beautiful. It is not to be inferred from this, 
that everything in architecture is beautiful, or is to be so esteemed, 
in exact proportion to its apparent utility. ]\o more is meant, than 
that nothing which evidently thwarts utility can or ought to be ac- 
counted beautiful; because, in every work of art, the design is to 
be regarded, and what defeats that design, cannot be considered 
as well done. The French rhetoricians have a maxim, that in litera- 
ry composition, " nothing is beautiful which is not true." They 
do not intend to say, that strict and literal truth is alone beautiful 
in poetry or oratory; but they mean that, that which grossly of- 
fends against probability, is not in good taste, in either. The same 
relation subsists between beauty and utility in architecture, as be- 
tween truth and imagination in poetry. Utility is not to be obviously 
sacrificed tobeauty, in the one case; truth and probability are not to 
be outraged for the cause of fiction and fancy, in the other. In the 
severer styles of architecture, beauty and utility approach, so as 
to be almost identical. Where utility is more'strongly than ordinary 
the main design, the proportions which produce it, raise the sense 
or feeling of beauty, by a sort of reflection or deduction of the mind. 
It is said that ancient Rome had perhaps no finer specimens of the 
classic Doric, than were in the sewers which ran under her streets, 
and which were of course always to be covered from human obser- 
vation: so true is it, that cultivated taste is always pleased with just- 
ness of proportion; and that design, seen to be accomplished, gives 
pleasure. The discovery and fast increasing use of a noble materi- 
al, found in vast abundance, nearer to our cities than the Pentelican 
quarries to Athens, may well awaken, as they do, new attention to 



448 

architectural improvement. If this material be not entirely well 
suited to the elegant Ionic, or the rich Corinthian, it is yet fitted, 
beyond marble, beyond perhaps almost any other material, for the 
Doric, of which the appropriate character is strength, and for the 
Gothic, of which the appropriate character is grandeur. 

It is not more than justice, perhaps, to our ancestors, to call the 
Gothic the English, classic architecture; for in England, probably, 
are its most distinguished specimens. As its leading characteristic 
is grandeur, its main use would seem to be sacred. It had its ori- 
gin, indeed, in ecclesiastical architecture. Its evident design was 
to surpass the ancient orders, by the size of the structure and its far 
greater heights; to excite perceptions of beauty, by the branching 
traceries and the gorgeous tabernacles within ; and to inspire religious 
awe and reverence by the lofty pointed arches; — the flying buttresses, 
the spires, and the pinnacles, springing from beneath, stretching up- 
wards towards the heavens with the prayers of the worshippers. Ar- 
chitectural beauty having always adirect reference to utility, edifices, 
whether civil or sacred, must of course undergo different changes, 
in different places, on account of climate, and in different ages, on 
account of the difl^erent states of other arts, or different notions of 
convenience. The hypethral temple, for example, or temple without 
a roof, is not to be thought of in our latitudes; and the use of glass, 
a thing not now to be dispensed with, is also to be accommodated, 
as well as it may be, to the architectural structure. These neces- 
sary variations, and many more admissible ones, give room for im- 
provements to an indefinite extent, without departing from the prin- 
ciples of true taste. May we not hope, then, to see our own city 
celebrated as the city of architectural excellence? May we not 
hope, to see our native granite reposing in the ever during strength 
of the Doric, or springing up in the grand and lofty Gothic, in forms 
which beauty and utility, the eye and the judgment, taste and devo- 
tion, shall unite to approve and to admire.^ But while we regard sa- 
cred and civil architecture as highly important, let us not forget that 
other branch, so essential to personal comfort and happiness, — domes- 
tic architecture, or common housebuilding. ' In ancient times, in all 
governments, and under despotic governments in all times, the con- 
venience or gratification of the monarch, the government, or the 
public, has been allowed too often, to put aside considerations of 
personal and individual iiappiness. With us, different ideas happily 
prevail. With us, it is not the public, or the government, in its cor- 
porate character, that is the only object of regard. The public 
happiness is to be the aggregate of the happiness of individuals. 
Our system begins with the individual man. It begins with him 
when he leaves the cradle; and it proposes to instruct him in know- 
ledge and in morals, to prepare him for his state of manhood: on his 
arrival at that state, to invest him with political rights, to protect 
him, in his i>ioperty and pursuits, and in his family and social con- 
nexions; and thus to ena!)le him to enjoy as an individual, moral, 
and rational being, what belongs to a moral and rational being. For 
the same reason, the arts are to be promoted fi)r their general 
Utility, as they eflect the personal happiness and well being of the 



449 

individuals who compose the community. It would be adverse to 
the whole spirit of our system, that we should have gorgeous and 
expensive public buildings, if individuals were at the same time to 
live in houses of mud. Our public edifices are to be reared by the 
surplus of wealth, and the savings of labor, after the necessities and 
comforts of individuals are provided for; and not, like the Pyramids, 
by the unremitted toil of thousands of half starved slaves. Domes- 
tic architecture, therefore, as connected with individual comfort and 
happiness, is to hold a first place in the esteem of our artists. Let 
our citizens have houses cheap, but comfortable; not gaudy, but in 
good taste; not judged by the portion of earth which they cover, but 
by their symmetry, their fitness for use, and their durability. 

Without farther reference to particular arts, with which the objects 
of this society have a close connexion, it may yet be added, gener- 
ally, that this is a period of great activity, of industry, of enter- 
prise in the various walks of life. It is a period, too, of growing 
wealth, and increasing prosperity. It i^ a time when men are fast 
multiplying, but when means are increasing still faster than men. 
An auspicious moment, then, it is, full of motive and encouragement, 
for the vigorous prosecution of those inquiries, which have for their 
object the discovery of farther and farther means of uniting the results 
of scientific research to the arts and business of life. 



57 00^ 



ARGUMENT 



ON THE TRIAL OF JOHN F. KNAPP, FOR THE MURDER OF JOSEPH 
WHITE, ESQ. OF SALEM, IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX, MASSA- 
CHUSETTS; ON THE NIGHT OF THE 6th OF APRIL, 1830. 



Mr. White, a highly respectable and wealthy citizen of Salem, about eighty years of 
age, was found on the morning of the 7tli of April, 1830, in his bed murdered, under such 
circumstances as to create a strong sensation in that town, and tln'oughout the community. 

Richard Crowninshield, George Crowninshield, Joseph J. Knapp, and John F. Knapp, 
were a few weeks after arrested on a charge of having perpetrated the murder, and commit- 
ted for trial. Joseph J. Knapp, soon after, under the promise of favor from government, 
made a full confession of the crime, and the circumstances attending it. In a few days after 
this disclosure was made, Richard Crowninshield, who was supposed to have been the 
principal assassin, committed suicide. 

A special session of the Supreme Court was ordered by the Legislature, for the trial of 
the Prisoners at Salem, in July. At that time, John F. Knapp was indicted as principal ■ 
in the murder, and George Crowninshield and Joseph J. Knapp as accessories. 

On account of the death of Chief Justice Parker, which occurred on the 26th of July, 
the Court adjourned to Tuesday, the 3d day of August, when it proceeded in the trial of 
John F. Knapp. Joseph J. Knapp, being called upon, refused to testify, and die pledge of 
the Government was withdrawn. 

At the request of the prosecuting officers of tlie Government, Mr. Webster appeared as 
counsel and assisted in the ti'ial. 

Mr. Dexter addressed the Jurj' on behalf of the Prisoner, and was succeeded by Mr. 
Webster, in the following Speech : 

I AM little accustomed, gentlemen, to the part which I am now at- 
tempting to perform. Hardly more than once or twice, has it hap- 
pened to me to be concerned, on the side of the government, in any 
criminal prosecution whatever; and never, until the present occasion, 
in any case affecting life. 

But I very much regret that it should have been thought necessa- 
ry to suggest to you, that I am brought here to " hurry you against 
the law, and beyond the evidence." I hope I have too much regard 
for justice, and too much respect for my own character, to attempt 
either; and were I to make such attempt, I am sure, that in this 
court, nothing can be carried against the law, and that gentlemen, 
intelligent and just as you are, are not, by any power, to be hurried 
beyond the evidence. Though I could well have wished to shun 



451 

this occasion, I have not felt at liberty to withhold my professional 
assistance, when it is supposed that I might be in some degree use- 
ful, in investigating and discovering the truth, respecting this most 
extraordinary murder. It has seemed to be a duty, incumbent on 
me, as on every other citizen, to do my best, and my utmost, to 
bring to light the perpetrators of this crime. Against the prisoner 
at the bar, as an individual, I cannot have the slightest prejudice. 
I would not do him the smallest injury or injustice. But I do not 
affect to be indifferent to the discovery, and the punishment of this 
deep guilt. I cheerfully share in the opprobrium, how much soever 
it may be, which is cast on those who feel and manifest an anxious 
concern that all who had a part in planning, or a hand in executing 
this deed of midnight assassination, may be brought to answer for 
their enormous crime, at the bar of public justice. Gentlemen, it 
is a most extraordinary case. In some respects, it has hardly a 
precedent anywhere; certainly none in our New England history. 
This bloody drama exhibited no suddenly excited ungovernable rage. 
The actors in it were not surprised by any lion-like temptation 
springing upon their virtue, and overcoming it, before resistance 
could begin. ]\or did they do the deed to glut savage vengeance, 
or satiate long settled and deadly hate. It was a cool, calculating, 
money-making murder. — It was all "hire and salary, not revenge." 
It was the weighing of money against life; the counting out of so 
many pieces of silver, against so many ounces of blood. 

An aged man, without an enemy in the world, in his own house, 
and in his own bed, is made the victim of a butcherly murder, for 
mere pay. — Truly, here is a new lesson for painters and poets. 
Whoever shall hereafter draw the portrait of murder, if he will show 
it as it has been exhibited in an example, where such example was 
last to have been looked for, in the very bosom of our New England 
society, let him not give it the grim visage of Moloch, the brow 
knitted by revenge, the face black with settled hate, and the blood- 
shot eye emitting livid fires of malice. Let him draw, rather, a 
decorous, smoothfaced, bloodless demon; a picture in repose, rather 
than in action; not so much an example of human nature, in its de- 
pravity, and in its paroxysms of crime, as an infernal nature, a fiend, 
in the ordinary display and developement of his character. 

The deed was executed with a degree of self-possession and 
steadiness, equal to the wickedness with which it was planned. The 
circumstances, now clearly in evidence, spread out the whole scene 
before us. Deep sleep had fallen on the destined victim, and on all 
beneath his roof A healthful old man, to whom sleep was sweet, 
the first sound slumbers of the night held him in their soil but strong 
embrace. The assassin enters, through the window already pre- 
pared, into an unoccupied apartment. — With noiseless foot he paces 
the lonely hall, half lighted by the moon; he winds up the ascent 
of the stairs, and reaches the door of the chamber. Of this, he 
moves the lock, by soft and continued |);essure, till it turns on its 
hinges without noise; and he enters, and beholds his victim before 
him. The room was uncommonly open to the admission of light. 
The face of the innocent sleeper was turned from the murderer, and 
the beams of the moon, resting on the gray locks of his aged temple, 



452 

showed him where to strike. The fatal blow is given I and tlie victim 
passes, without a struirgle or a motion, from the repose of sUu^p to tiie 
repose of death! It is the assassin's purpose to make sure work; and 
he yet pHes the dagger, though it was obvious that Ht« had been de- 
stroyed by the bh)w of the bludgeon. — He even raises the aged arm, 
that he may not fail in his aim at the heart, and replaces it again over 
the wounds of the poniard! To finish the picture, he explores the 
wrist for the pulse! He feels for it, and ascertains that it beats no 
longer! It is accomplished. The- deed is done. He retreats, re- 
traces his steps to the window, passes out through it as he came in, 
and escapes. He has done the murder — no eye has seen him, no 
ear has heard him. The secret is his own, and it is safe! 

Ah! gentlemen, that was a dreadful mistake. Such a secret can 
be safe nowhere. The whole creation of God has neither nook 
nor corner, where the guilty can bestow it, and say it is safe. Not 
to speak of that eye which glances through all disguises, and be- 
holds everything, as in the splendor of noon, — such secrets of guilt 
are never safe from detection, even by men. True it is, generally 
speaking, that " murder will out." True it is, that Providence hath 
so ordained, and doth so govern things, that those who break the great 
law of heaven, by shedding man's blood, seldom succeed in avoid- 
ing discovery. Especially, in a case exciting so much attention as 
this, discovery must come, and will come, sooner or later. A thou- 
sand eyes turn at once to explore every man, everything, every cir- 
cumstance, connected with the time and place; a thousand ears 
catch every whisper; a thousand excited minds intensely dwell on 
the scene, shedding all their light, and ready to kindle the slightest 
circumstance into a blaze of discovery. Meantime, the guilty soul 
cannot keep its own secret. It is false to itself; or rather it feels 
an irresistible impulse of conscience to be true to itself It labors 
under its guilty possession, and knows not what to do with it. 
The human heart was not made for the residence of such an in- 
habitant. It finds itself preyed on by a torment, which it dares not 
acknowledge to God nor man. A vulture is devouring it, and it can 
ask no sympathy or assistance, either from heaven or earth. The 
secret which the murderer possesses soon comes to possess him; 
and, like the evil spirits of which we read, it overcomes him, and 
leads him whithersoever it will. He feels it beating at his heart, 
rising to his throat, and demanding disclosure. He thinks the 
whole world sees it in his lace, reads it in his eyes, and almost hears 
its workings in the very silence of his thoughts. It has become 
his master. It betrays his discretion, it breaks down his courage, 
it conquers his prudence. When suspicions, from without, begin 
to embarrass him, and the net of circumstance to entangle him, 
the fatal secret struggles with still greater violence to burst forth. 
It must be confessed, it will be confessed, there is no refuge from 
confession but suicide, and suicide is confession. 

Much has been said, on this occasion, of the excitement which 
has existed, and still exists, and of the extraordinary measures taken 
to discover and punish the guilty. No doubt there has been, and is, 
much excitement, and strange indeed were it, had it been otherwise. 
Should not all the peaceable and well disposed naturally feel con- 



453 

cerned, and naturally exert themselves to bring to punishment the 
authors of this secret assassination ? Was it a thing to be slept up- 
on or forgotten? Did you, gentlemen, sleep quite as quietly in your 
beds after this murder as before ? Was it not a case for rewards, 
for meetings, for committees, for the united efforts of all the good, 
to find out a band of murderous conspirators, of midnight ruffians, 
and to bring them to the bar of justice and law? If this be excite- 
ment, is it an unnatural, or an improper excitement? 

It seems to me, gentlemen, that there are appearances of another 
feeling, of a very different nature and character, not very extensive 
I would hope, but still there is too much evidence of its existence. 
Such is human nature, that some persons lose their abhorrence of 
crime, in their admiration of its magnificent exhibitions. Ordinary 
vice is reprobated by them, but extraordinary guilt, exquisite wicked- 
ness, the high flights and poetry of crime, seize on the imagination, 
and lead them to forget the depths of the guilt, in admiration of the 
excellence of the performance, or the unequalled atrocity of the pur- 
pose. There are those in our day, who have made great use of this 
infirmity of our nature; and by means of it done infinite injury to 
the cause of good morals. They have affected not only the taste, 
but I fear also the principles, of the young, the heedless, and the 
imaginative, by the exhibition of interesting and beautiful monsters. 
They render depravity attractive, sometimes by the polish of its man- 
ners, and sometimes by its very extravagance; and study to show 
off crime under all the advantages of cleverness and dexterity. 
Gentlemen, this is an extraordinary murder — but it is still a murder. 
We are not to lose ourselves in wonder at its origin, or in gazing 
on its cool and skilful execution. We are to detect and to punish it; 
and while we proceed with caution against the prisoner, and are to 
be sure that we do not visit on his head the offences of others, we 
are yet to consider that we are dealing with a case of most atrocious 
crime, which has not the slightest circumstance about it to soften 
its enormity. It is murder, deliberate, concerted, malicious murder. 

Although the interest in this case may have diminished by the re- 
peated investigation of the facts; still, the additional labor which 
it imposes upon all concerned is not to be regretted, if it should re- 
sult in removing all doubts of the guilt of the prisoner. 

The learned counsel for the prisoner has said truly, that it is 
your individual duty to judge the prisoner, — that it is your individual 
duty to determine his guilt or innocence — and that you are to weigh 
the testimony with candor and fairness. But much at the same 
time has been said, which, although it would seem to have no 
distinct bearing on the trial, cannot be passed over without some 
notice. 

A tone of complaint so peculiar has been indulged, as would 
almost lead us to doubt whether the prisoner at the bar, or the mana- 
gers of this prosecution, are now on trial. Great pains have been 
taken to complain of the manner of the prosecution. We heftr of 
getting up a case; — of setting in motion trains of machinery; — of 
foul testimony; of combinations to overwhelm the prisoner; — of pri- 
vate prosecutors; — that the prisoner is hunted, persecuted, driven to 
his trial; — that everybody is against him; — and various other com- 



454 

plaints, as if those who would bring to punishment the authors of 
this murder were almost as bad as they who committed it. 

In the course of my whole life, I have never heard before, so 
much said about the particular counsel who happen to be employed; 
as if it were extraordinary, that other counsel than the usual of- 
ficers of the government should be assisting in the conducting of a 
case on the part of the government. In one of the last capital trials 
in this county, that of Jackman for " the Goodridge robbery," (so 
called,) I remember that the learned head of the Suffolk Bar, Mr. 
Prescott, came down in aid of the officers of the government. This 
was regarded as neither strange nor improper. The counsel for the 
prisoner, in that case, contented themselves with answering his 
arguments, as far as they were able, instead of carping at his 
presence. 

Complaint is made that rewards were offered, in this case, and 
temptations held out to obtain testimony. Are not rewards always of- - 
fared, when great and secret offences are committed .' Rewards were 
offered in the case to which I have alluded; and every other means 
taken to discover the offenders, that ingenuity, or the most perse- 
vering vigilance could suggest. The learned counsel have suffered 
their zeal to lead them into a strain of complaint, at the manner in 
which the perpetrators of this crime were detected, almost indicating 
that they regard it as a positive injury, to them, to have found out 
their guilt. Since no man witnessed it, since they do not now con- 
fess it, attempts to discover it are half esteemed as officious inter- 
meddling, and impertinent inquiry. 

It is said, that here even a committee of vigilance was appointed. 
This is a subject of reiterated remark. This committee are point- 
ed at, as though they had been officiously intermeddling with the 
administration of justice. They are said to have been "laboring 
for months" against the prisoner. Gentlemen, what must we do in 
such a case.'' Are people to be dumb and still, through fear of over- 
doing.^ Is it come to this, that an effort cannot be made, a hand can- 
not be lifted to discover the guilty, without its being said, there is a 
combination to overwhelm innocence } Has the community lost all 
moral sense? Certainly, a community that would not be roused to 
action, upon an occasion such as this was, a community which should 
not deny sleep to their eyes, and slumber to their eyelids, till they 
had exhausted all the means of discovery and detection, must, indeed, 
be lost to all moral sense, and would scarcely deserve protection 
from the laws. The learned counsel have endeavoured to persuade 
you, that there exists a prejudice against the persons accused of 
this murder. They would have you understand that it is not con- 
fined to this vicinity alone; — but that even the Legislature have 
caught this spirit. That through the procurement of the gentleman, 
here styled private prosecutor, who is a member of the Senate, a 
special session of this court was appointed for the trial of these of^ 
fenders. That the ordinary movements of the wheels of justice 
were too slow for the purposes devised. — But (ikjes not everybody 
see and know that it was matter of absolute necessity to have 
a special session of the court? Wiien, or how could the prisoners 
have been tried witliout a special session? In the ordinary arrange- 



455 

ment of the courts, but one week, in a year, is allotted for the 
whole court to sit in this county. In the trial of all capital offences 
a majority of the court, at least, are required to be present. In the 
trial of the present case alone, three weeks have already been taken 
up. Without such special session, then, three years would not have 
been sufficient for the purpose. It is answer sufficient to all com- 
plaints on this subject, to say, that the law was drawn by the late 
chief justice himself, to enable the court to accomplish its duties; 
and to afford the persons accused an opportunity for trial without 
delay. 

Again, it is said, that it was not thought of making Francis Knapp, 
the prisoner at the bar, a principal till after the death of Richard 
Crowninshieldjjun.; that the present indictment is an afterthought — 
that "testimony was got up" for the occasion. It is not so. There 
is no authority for this suggestion. The case of the Knapps had 
not then been before the grand jury. The officers of the govern- 
ment did not know what the testimony would be against them. 
They could not therefore have determined what course they should 
pursue. They intended to arraign all as principals, who should 
appear to have been principals; and all as accessories, who should 
appear to have been accessories. All this could be known only 
when the evidence should be produced. 

But the learned counsel for the defendant take a somewhat loftier 
flight still. They are more concerned, they assure us, for the law 
itself, than even for their client. Your decision, in this case, they 
say, will stand as a precedent. Gentlemen, we hope it will. We 
hope it will be a precedent, both of candor and intelligence, of fair- 
ness and of firmness; a precedent of good sense and honest purpose, 
pursuing their investigation discreetly, rejecting loose generalities, 
exploring all the circumstances, weighing each, in search of truth, 
and embracing and declaring the truth, when found. 

It is said, that "laws are made, not for the punishment of the guil- 
ty, but for the protection of the innocent." This is not quite accurate 
perhaps, but if so, we hope they will be so administered as to give 
that protection. But who are the innocent, whom the law would 
protect.' Gentlemen, Joseph White was innocent. They are in- 
nocent who having lived in the fear of God, through the day, wish 
to sleep in his peace through the night, in their own beds. The law 
is established, that those who live quietly, may sleep quietly; that 
they who do no harm, may feel none. The gentleman can think of 
none that are innocent, except the prisoner at the bar, not yet con- 
victed. Is a proved conspirator to murder, innocent? Are the 
Crovvninshields and the Knapps, innocent? What is innocence? 
How deep stained with blood, — how reckless in crime, — how deep 
in depravity, may it be, and yet remain innocence? The law is 
made, if we would speak with entire accuracy, to protect the inno- 
cent, by punishing the guilty. But there are those innocent, out 
of court as well as in; — innocent citizens not suspected of crime, 
as well as innocent prisoners at the bar. 

The criminal law is not founded in a principle of vengeance. It 
does not j)unisli, that it may iallict suffering. The humanity of the 
law feels and regrets, every pain it causes, every hour of restraint 



456 

it imposes, and more deeply still, every life it forfeits. But it uses 
evil, as the means of preventing greater evil. It seeks to deter 
from crime, by the example of punishment. This is its true, and 
only true main object. It restrains the liberty of the few offenders, 
that the many who do not offend, may enjoy their own liberty. It 
forfeits the life of the murderer, that other murders may not be 
committed. The law might open the jails, and at once set free 
all persons accused of offences, and it ought to do so, if it could 
be made certain that no other offences would hereafter be com- 
mitted. Because, it punishes, not to satisfy any desire to indict 
pain, but simply to prevent the repetition of crimes. When the 
guilty, therefore, are not punished, the law has, so far, failed of its 
purpose; the safety of the innocent is, so far, endangered. Every 
unpunished murder takes away something from the security of every 
man's life. And whenever a jury, through whimsical and ill- 
founded scruples, suffer the guilty to escape, they make themselves 
answerable for the augmented danger of the innocent. 

We wish nothing to be strained against this defendant. W^hy 
then all this alarm .^ Why all this complaint against the manner in 
which the crime is discovered.'' The prisoner's counsel catch at 
supposed flaws of evidence, or bad character of witnesses, without 
meeting the case. Do they mean to deny the conspiracy? Do 
they mean to deny that the two Crowninshiclds and the two Knapps 
were conspirators.'' Why do they rail against Palmer, while they 
do not disprove, and hardly dispute the truth of any one fact sworn 
to by him.^ Instead of this, it is made matter of sentimentality, that 
Palmer has been prevailed upon to betray his bosom companions, 
and to violate the sanctity of friendship: again, I ask, why do they 
not meet the case.? If the fact is out, why not meet it.' Do they 
mean to deny that Capt. White is dead.' One should have almost 
supposed even that, from some remarks that have been made. Do 
they mean to deny the conspiracy ? Or, admitting a conspiracy, do 
they mean to deny only, that Frank Knapp, the prisoner at the bar, 
was abetting in the murder, being present, and so deny that he was 
a principal.' If a conspiracy is proved, it bears closely upon every 
subsequent subject of inquiry. Why don't they come to the fact? 
Here the defence is wholly indistinct. The counsel neither take the 
ground, nor abandon it. They neither fly, nor light. They hover. 
But they must come to a closer mode of contest. They must meet 
the facts, and either deny or admit them. Had the prisoner at the 
bar, then, a knowledge of this conspiracy or not? This is the ques- 
tion. Instead of laying out their strength in complaining of the 
manner in which the deed is discovered, — of the extraordinary pains 
taken to bring the prisoner's guilt to light; — would it not be better 
to show there was no guilt? Would it not he bettt^r to show his 
innocence? They say, and they complain, that the community feel 
a great desire that he should be punished for his crimes; — would 
it not be better to convince you that he has committed no crime? 

Gentlemen, let us now come to the case. Your first inquiry, on 
the evidence, will be, — was Capt. White murdered in pursuance of 



457 

a conspiracy, and was the defendant one of this conspiracy? If so, 
the second inquiry is, was he so connected with the murder itself 
as that he is hable to be convicted as a principall The defendant 
is indicted as a principal. If not guilty as such, you cannot convict 
him. The indictment contains three distinct classes of counts. In 
the Jirsty he is charged as having done the deed, with his own hand; — 
in the second, as an aider and abettor to Richard Crowninshield, jr. 
who did the deed; — in the third, as an aider and abettor to some per- 
son unknown. If you believe him guilty on either of these counts, 
or in either of these ways, you must convict him. 

It may be proper to say, as a preliminary remark, that there are 
two extraordinary circumstances attending this trial. One is, that 
Richard Crowninshield, jr., the supposed immediate perpetra!or of 
the murder, since his arrest, has committed suicide. He has gone 
to answer before a tribunal of perfect infallibility. The other is, 
that Joseph Knapp, the supposed origin and planner of the murder, 
having once made a full disclosure of the facts, under a promise of 
indemnity, is, nevertheless, not now a witness. Notwithstanding 
his disclosure, and his promise of indemnity, he now refuses to tes- 
tify. He chooses to return to his original state, and now stands 
answerable himself, when the time shall come for his trial. These 
circumstances it is fit you should remember, in your investigation 
of the case. 

Your decision may affect more than the life of this defendant. If 
he be not convicted as principal, no one can be. Nor can any one 
be convicted of a participation in the crime as accessory. The 
Knapps and George Crowninshield will be again on the community. 
This shows the importance of the duty you have to perform; — and 
to remind you of the degree of care and wisdom, necessary to be 
exercised in its performance. But certainly these considerations 
do not render the prisoner's guilt any clearer, nor enhance the 
weight of the evidence against him. No one desires you to regard 
consequences in that light. No one wishes anything to be strained, 
or too far pressed against the prisoner. Still, it is fit you should 
see the full importance of the duty devolved upon you. And now, 
gentlemen, in examining this evidence, let us begin at the beginning, 
and see first what we know independent of the disputed testimony. 
This is a case of circumstantial evidence. And these circumstan- 
ces, we think, are full and satisfactory. The case mainly depends 
upon them, and it is common, that offences of this kind, must be , 
proved in this way. Midnight assassins take no witnesses. The 
evidence of the facts relied on has been, somewhat sneeringly, de- 
nominated by the learned counsel, " circumstantial stuff,''^ but, it is 
not such stuff as dreams are made of Why does he not rend this 
stuff? Why does he not tear it away, with the crush of his hand. He 
dismisses it, a little too summarily. It shall be my business to exam- 
ine this stuff and try its cohesion. 

The letter from Palmer at Belfast, is that no more than flimsy 

The fabricated letters, from Knapp to the committee, and Mr 
White, are they nothing but stuff'? 

58 pp 



458 

The circumstance, that the housekeeper was away at the time the 
murder was committed, as it was agreed she would be, is that, too, a 
useless piece of the same stuff f 

The facts, that the key of the chamber door was taken out and 
secreted; that the window was unbarred and unbolted; are these to 
be so slightly and so easily disposed of? 

It is necessary, gentlemen, now to settle, at the commencement, 
the great question of a conspiracy. If there was none, or the defen- 
dant was not a party, then there is no evidence here to convict him. 
If there was a conspiracy, and he is proved to have been a party, 
then these two facts have a strong bearing on others and all the great 
points of inquiry. The defendant's counsel take no distinct ground, 
as I have already said, on this point, neither to admit, nor to deny. 
They choose to confine themselves to a hypothetical mode of speech. 
They say, supposing there was a conspiracy, non seqtiiliir, that the 
prisoner is guilty, as principal. Be it so. But still, if there was a 
conspiracy, and if he was a conspirator, and helped to plan the mur- 
der, this may shed much light on the evidence, which goes to charge 
him with the execution of that plan. 

We mean to make out the conspiracy; and that the defendant 
was a party to it; and then to draw all just inferences from these 
facts. 

Let me ask your attention, then, in the first place, to those appear- 
ances, on the morning after the murder, which have a tendency to 
show, that it was done in pursuance of a preconcerted plan of ope- 
ration. What are they? A man was found murdered in his bed. — 
No stranger had done the deed — no one unacquainted with the house 
had done it. — It was apparent, that somebody from within had open- 
ed, and somebody from without had entered. — There had been there, 
obviously and certainly, concert and cooperation. The inmates of the 
house were not alarmed when the murder was perpetrated. The as- 
sassin had entered, without any riot, or any violence. He had found 
the way prepared before him. The house had been previously open- 
ed. The window was unbarred, from within, and its fastening un- 
screwed. There was a lock on the door of the chamber, in which 
Mr. White slept, but the key was gone. It had been taken away, 
and secreted. The footsteps of the murderer were visible, out doors, 
tending toward the window. The plank by which he entered the 
window, still remained. The road he pursued had been thus pre- 
pared for him. The victim was slain, and the murderer had escaped. 
Everything indicated that somebody from itiihin had cooperated 
with somebody from ivithout. Everything proclaimed that some of the 
inmates, or somebody having access to the house, had had a hand in 
the murder. On the face of the circumstances, it was apparent, 
therefore, that this was a premeditated, concerted, conspired murder. 
Who then were the conspirators? If not now found out, we are 
still groping in the dark, and the whole tragedy is still a mystery. 

If the Knapps and the Crowninshields were not the conspirators, 
in this murder, then there is a whole set of conspirators yet not dis- 
covered. Because, independent of the testimony of Palmer and 
Leighton, independent of all disputed evidence, we know, from un- 
controverted facts, that this murder was, and must have been, the 



459 

result of concert and cooperation, between two or more. We know 
it was not done, without plan and deliberation; we see, that whoever 
entered the house, to strike the blow, was favored and aided by 
some one, who had been previously in the house, without suspicion, 
and who had prepared the way. This is concert, this is coopera- 
tion, this is conspiracy. If the Knapps and the Crowninshields, 
then, were not the conspirators, who were.^ Joseph Knapp had a 
motive to desire the death of Mr. White, and that motive has been 
shown. 

He was connected by marriage in the family of Mr. White. His 
wife was the daughter of Mrs. Beckford, who was the only child of 
a sister of the deceased. The deceased was more than eighty years 
old, and he had no children. — His only heirs were nephews and 
neices. — He was supposed to be possessed of a very large fortune, — 
which would have descended, by law, to his several nephews and 
neices in equal shares, or, if there was a will, then according to the 
will. But as Capt. White had but two branches of heirs — the chil- 
dren of his brother Henry White, and of Mrs. Beckford — according 
to the common idea each of these branches would have shared one 
half of Mr. White's property. 

This popular idea is not legally correct. But it is common, and 
very probably was entertained by the parties. According to this, 
Mrs Beckford, on Mr. White's death, without a will, would haVe 
been entitled to one half of Mr. White's ample fortune; and Joseph 
Knapp had married one of her three children. There was a will, 
and this will gave the bulk of the property to others; and we learn 
from Palmer that one part of the design was to destroy the will be- 
fore the murder was committed. There had been a previous will, 
and that previous will was known or believed to have been more 
favorable than the other, to the Beckford family. So that by destroy- 
ing the last will, and destroying the life of the testator at the same 
time, either the first and more favorable will would be set up, or the 
deceased would have no will, which would be, as was supposed, still 
more favorable. But the conspirators not having succeeded in ob- 
taining and destroying the last will, though they accomplished the 
murder, but the last will being found in existence and safe, and that 
will bequeathing the mass of the property to others, it seemed, at the 
time, impossible for Joseph Knapp, as for any one else, indeed, but 
the principal devisee, to have any motive which should lead to the 
murder. The key which unlocks the whole mystery, is, the know- 
ledge of the intention of the conspirators to steal the will. This is 
derived from Palmer, and it explains all. It solves the whole mar- 
vel. It shows the motive actuating those, against whom there is 
much evidence, but who, without the knowledge of this intention, 
were not seen to have had a motive. This intention is proved, as I 
have said, by Palmer; and it is so congruous with all the rest of the 
case, it agrees so well with all facts and circumstances, that no man 
could well withhold his belief, though the facts were stated by a 
still less credible witness. If one, desirous of opening a lock, turns 
over and tries a bunch of keys till he finds one that will open it, 
he naturally supposes he has found Ihe key of that lock. So in ex- 
plaining circumstances of evidence, which are apparently irrecon- 



460 

cilable, or unaccountable, if a fact be suggested, which at once ac- 
counts for all, and reconciles all, by whomsoever it may be stated, 
it is still difficult not to believe that such fact is the true fact be- 
longing to the case. In this respect. Palmer's testimony is singularly 
confirmed. If he were false, then his ingenuity could not furnish us 
such clear exposition of strange appearing circumstances. Some 
truth, not before known, can alone do that. 

When we look back, then, to the state of things immediately on 
the discovery of the murder, we see that suspicion would naturally 
turn at once, not to the heirs at law, but to those principally bene- 
fited by the will. They, and they alone, would be supposed or 
seem to have a direct object, for wishing Mr. White's life to be 
terminated. And strange as it may seem, we find counsel now in- 
sisting, that if no apology, it is yet mitigation of the atrocity of the 
Knapps' conduct, in attempting to charge this foul murder on Mr. 
White, the nephew and principal devisee, that public suspicion was 
already so directed! As if assassination of character were excusa- 
ble, in proportion as circumstances may render it easy. Their en- 
deavours, when they knew they were suspected themselves, to fix the 
charge on others, by foul means and by falsehood, are fair and strong 
proof of their own guilt. But more of that, hereafter. 

The counsel say that they might safely admit, that Richard Crown- 
inshield, jr. was the perpetrator of this murder. 

But how could they safely admit that ? If that were admitted, 
everything else would follow. For why should Richard Crownin- 
shield, jr. kill Mr. White? He was not his heir, nor his devisee; nor 
was he his enemy. What could be his motive ? If Richard Crown- 
inshield, jr. killed Mr. White, he did it, at some one's procurement 
who himself had a motive. And who, having any motive, is shown 
to have had any intercourse with Richard Crowninshield, jr. but Jo- 
seph Knapp, and this, principally through the agency of the prison- 
er at the bar.? — It is the infirmity, the distressing difficulty of the 
prisoner's case, that his counsel cannot and dare not admit what 
they yet cannot disprove and what all must believe. He who believes, 
on this evidence, that Richard Crowninshield, jr. was the immediate 
murderer, cannot doubt that both the Knapps were conspirators in 
that murder. The counsel, therefore, are wrong, I think, in saying 
they might safely admit this. The admission of so important, and 
so connected a fact, would render it impossible to contend further 
against the proof of the entire conspiracy, as we state it. 

What, then, was this conspiracy.' J. J. Knapp, jr. desirous of 
destroying the will, and of taking the life of the deceased, hired a 
ruffian, who with the aid of other ruffians, were to enter the house, 
and murder him, in his own bed. 

As far back as January, this conspiracy began. Endicott testifies 
to a conversation with J. J. Knapp, at that time, in which Knapp told 
him that Capt. White had made a will, and given the principal part of 
his i)roperty to Stephen White. When asked how he knew, he said 
" black and white don't lie." When asked, if the will was not lock- 
ed up, he said " there is such a thing as two keys to the same lock." 
And speaking of the then kite illness of Capt. White, he said, that 
StephenWhite would not have been sent lor, if Iw had been there. 



461 

Hence it appears, that as early as January, Knapp had a know- 
ledge of the win, and that he had access to it, by means of false 
keys. This knowledge of the will, and an intent to destroy it, ap- 
pear also from Palmer's testimony — a fact disclosed to him by the 
other conspirators. He says, that he was informed of this by the 
Crowninshields on the 2d of April. But, then, it is said that Pal- 
mer is not to be credited; that by his own confession he is a felon; 
that he has been in the state prison in Maine; and above all, that 
he was an inmate and associate with these conspirators themselves. 
Let us admit these facts. Let us admit him to be as bad as they 
Avould represent him to be; still, in law, he is a competent witness. 
How else are the secret designs of the wicked to be proved, but by 
their wicked companions, to whom they have disclosed them.^ The 
government does not select its witnesses. The conspirators them- 
selves have chosen Palmer. He was the confidant of the prison- 
ers. The fact, however, does not depend on his testimony alone. 
It is corroborated by other proof; and, taken in connexion with the 
otlier circumstances, it has strong probability. In regard to the tes- 
timony of Palmer, generally, — it may be said, that it is less contra- 
dicted, in all parts of it, either by himself or others, than that of any 
other material witness, and that everything he has told, has been 
corroborated by other evidence, so far as it was susceptible of con- 
firmation. An attempt has been made to impair his testimony, as to 
his being at the half-way house, on the night of the murder; — you 
have seen with what success. Mr. Babb is called to contradict him: 
you have seen how little he knows, and even that not certainly; 
for he, himself, is proved to have been in an error, by supposing him 
to have been at the half-way house on the evening of the 9th of 
April. At that time, Palmer is proved to have been at Dustin's in 
Danvers. If, then, Palmer, bad as he is, has disclosed the secrets 
of the conspiracy, and has told the truth — there is no reason why it 
should not be believed. Truth is truth, come whence it may. 

The facts show, that this murder had been long in agitation, that 
it was not a new proposition, on the 2d of April; that it had been 
contemplated for five or six weeks before. R. Crowninshield was 
at Wenhaui in the latter part of March, as testified by Starrett. 
F. Knapp was at Danvers, in the latter part of February, as testi- 
fied by Allen. R. Crowninshield inquired whether Capt. Knapp 
was about home, when at Wenham. The probability is, that they 
would open the case to Palmer, as a new project. There are other 
circumstances that show it to have been some weeks in agitation. 
Palmer's testimony as to the transactions on the 2d of April, is cor- 
roborated by Allen, and by Osborn's books. He says that F. Knapp 
came there in the afternoon, and again in the evening. So the 
book shows. He says that Capt. White had gone out to his farm 
on that day. So others prove. How could this fact, or these facts, 
have been known to Palmer, unless F. Knapp had brought the 
knowledge.' and was it not the special object of this visit, to give 
information of this fact, that they might meet him and execute their 
purpose on his return from his farm? The letter of Palmer, written 
at Belfast, has intrinsic evidence of genuineness. It was mailed at 



462 

Belfast, May 13th. It states facts that he could not have known, 
unless his testimony be true. This letter was not an afterthought; 
it is a genuine narrative. In fact, it says, " I know the business 
your brother Frank was transacting on the 2d of April :" how could 
he have possibly known this, unless he had been there? The 
"^1000, that was to be paid ;" where could he have obtained this 
knowledge } The testimony of Endicott, of Palmer, and these facts, 
are to be taken together ; and they, most clearly, show, that the 
death of Capt. White must have been caused by somebody interested 
in putting an end to his life. 

As to the testimony of Leighton. As far as manner of testifying 
goes, he is a bad witness : — but it does not follow from this that he 
is not to be believed. There are some strange things about him. 
It is strange, that he should make up a story against Capt. Knapp, 
the person with whom he lived ; — that he never voluntarily told any- 
thing : all that he has said is screwed out of him. The story 
could not have been invented by him ; his character for truth is un- 
impeached ; and he intimated to another witness, soon after the 
murder happened, that he knew something he should not tell. 
There is not the least contradiction in his testimony, though he 
gives a poor account of withholding it. "^He says that he was ex- 
tremely bothered by those who questioned him. In the main story 
that he relates, he is universally consistent with himself: Some 
things are for him, and some against him. Examine the intrinsic 
probability of what he says. See if some allowance is not to be 
made for him, on account of his ignorance, with things of this kind. 
It is said to be extraordinary, that he should have heard just so 
much of the conversation and no more ; that he should have heard 
just whatAvas necessary to be proved, and nothing else. Admit that 
this is extraordinary ; still, this does not prove it not true. It is e.x- 
traordinary, that you twelve gentlemen should be called upon, out of 
all the men in the county, to decide this case : no one could have 
foretold this, three weeks since. It is extraordinary, that the first 
clue to this conspiracy, should have been derived from information 
given by the father of the prisoner at the bar. And in every case 
that comes to trial, there are many things extraordinary. The mur- 
der itself in this case is an extraordinary one ; but still we do not 
doubt its reality. 

It is argued, that this conversation between Joseph and Frank, 
could not have been, as Leighton has testified, because they had 
been together for several hours before, — this subject must have been 
uppermost in their minds, — whereas this appears to have been the 
commencement of their conversation upon it. Now, this depends 
altogether upon the tone and manner of the expression ; upon the 
particular word in the sentence, which was emphatically spoken. 
If he had said, "When did you see Dick, Frank .'"' — this would not 
seem to be the beginning of the conversation. With what empha- 
sis it was uttered, it is not possible to learn ; and therefore nothing 
can be made of this argument. If this boy's testimony stood 
alone, it should be received with caution. And the same may be 
said of the testimony of Palmer. But they do not stand alone. 
They furnish a clue to numerous other circumstances, which, \t-hen 



463 

known, react in corroborating what would have been received with 
caution, until thus corroborated. How could Leighton have made 
up this conversation : " When did you see Dick ?" " I saw him 
this morning." " When is he going to kill the old man." " I don't 
linow." "Tell him if he don't do it soon, I won't pay him." Here 
is a vast amount, in few words. Had he wit enough to invent this? 
There is nothing so powerful as truth ; and often nothing so strange. 
It is not even suggested that the story was made for him. There is 
nothing so extraordinary in the whole matter, as it would have been 
for this country boy to have invented this story. 

The acts of the parties themselves, furnish strong presumption of 
their guilt. What was done on the receipt of the letter from Maine.? 
This letter was signed by Charles Grant, jr. a person not known to 
either of the Knapps, — nor was it known to them, that any other 
person, beside the Crowninshields, knew of the conspiracy. This 
letter, by the accidental omission of the word jr. fell into the hands 
of the father, when intended for the son The father carried it to 
Wenham where both the sons were. They both read it. Fix your 
eye steadily, on this part of the circumstantial stuff, which is in the 
case ; and see what can be made of it. This was shown to the two 
brt)thers on Saturday, 15th of May. They, neither of them, knew 
Palmer. And if they had known him, they could not have known 
him to have been the writer of this letter. It was mysterious to 
them, how any one, at Belfast, could have had knowledge of this 
affair. Their conscious guilt prevented due circumspection. They 
did not see the bearing of its publication. They advised their 
father to carry it to the committee of vigilance, and it was so carried. 
On Sunday following, Joseph began to think there might be some- 
thing in it. Perhaps, in the meantime, he had seen one of the 
Crowninshields. He was apprehensive, that they might be suspect- 
ed; he was anxious to turn attention from their family. What 
course did he adopt to effect this? He addressed one letter, with a 
false name, to Mr. White, and another to the committee ; and to 
complete the climax of his folly, he signed the letter addressed to 
the committee, "Granf — the same name as that signed to the let- 
ter they then had from Belfast, addressed to Knapp. It was in the 
knowledge of the committee, that no person but the Knapps had 
seen this letter from Belfast ; and that no other person knew its 
signature. It therefore must have been irresistibly plain, to them, 
that one of the Knapps must have been the writer of the letter they 
had received, charging the murder on Mr. White. Add to this, 
the fact of its having been dated at Lynn, and mailed at Salem, four 
days after it was dated, and who could doubt respecting it? Have 
you ever read, or known, of folly equal to this? Can you conceive 
of crime more odious and abominable? Merely to explain the ap- 
parent mysteries of tlie letter from Palmer, they excite the basest 
suspicions of a man, who, if they were mnocent, they had no rea- 
son to believe guilty ; and who, if they were guilty, they most cer- 
tainly knew to be innocent. Could they have adopted a more 
direct method of exposing their own infamy? The letter to the 
committee has intrinsic marks of a knowledge of this transaction. 
It tells of the time, and the manner in which the murder was com- 



464 

mitted. Every line speaks the writer's condemnation. In attempt- 
ing to divert attention from his family, and to charge the guilt upon 
another, he indelibly fixes it upon himself. 

Jos3ph Knapp requested Allen to put these letters into the post- 
office, because, said he, " I wish to nip this silly affair in the bud." 
If this were not the order of an overruling Providence,! should say 
that it was the siHiest piece of folly that was ever practised. Mark 
the destiny of crime. It is ever obliged to resort to such subterfu- 
ges ; it trembles in the broad light j it betrays itself, in seeking con- 
cealment. He alone walks safely, who walks uprightly. Who, for 
a moment, can read these letters and doubt of J. Knapp's guilt? 
The constitution of nature is made to inform against him. There 
is no corner dark enough to conceal him. There is no turnpike 
broad enough, or smooth enough, for a man so guilty to walk in 
without stumbling. Every step proclaims his secret to every pas- 
senger. His own acts come out, to fix his guilt. In attempting to 
charge another with his own crime, he writes his own confession. To 
do away the effect of Palmer's letter, signed Grant — he writes his 
own letter and affixes to it the name of Grant. He writes in a dis- 
guised hand ; but how could it happen, that the same Grant should 
be in Salem, that was at Belfast ? This has brought the whole thing 
out. Evidently he did it, because he has adopted the same style. 
Evidently, he did it, — because he speaks of the price of blood, and 
of other circumstances connected with the murder, that no one but 
a conspirator could have known. 

Palmer says he made a visit to the Crowninshields, on the 9th of 
April. George then asked him whether he had heard of the murder. 
Richard inquired, whether he had heard the music at Salem. They 
said that they were suspected, that a committee had been appomted 
to search houses ; and that they had melted up the dagger, the day 
after the murder, because it would be a suspicious circumstanee to 
have it found in their possession. Now this committee was not ap- 
pointed, in fact, until Friday evening. But this proves nothing 
against Palmer, it does not prove that George did not tell him so; 
it only proves that he gave a false reason, for a fact. They had 
heard that they were suspected — how could they have heard this, 
unless it were from the whisperings of their own consciences.? 
Surely this rumor was not then public. 

About the 27th of April, another attempt is made by the Knapps 
to give a direction to public suspicion. They reported themselves 
to have been robbed, in passing from Salem to Wenham, near Wen- 
ham pond. They came to Salem, and stated the particulars of the 
adventure : they described persons, — their dress, size, and appear- 
ance, who had been suspected of the murder. They would have it 
understood, that the community was infested with a band of ruffians, 
and that they, themselves, were the particular objects of their ven- 
geance. Now, this turns out to be all fictitious, — all false. Can 
you conceive of anything more enormous, any wickedness greater, 
than the circulation of such reports? — than the allegation of crimes, 
if committed, capital? If no sucli thing — then it reacts, with double 
force upon themselves, and goes very far to show their guilt. How 
did tliey conduct on this occasion? did they make hue and cry? Did 



465 

they give information that they had been assauUed, that night, at 
Wenham? No such thing. They rested quietly on that night ; 
they waited to be called on for the particulars of their adventure ; 
they made no attempt to arrest the offenders ; — this was not their 
object. They were content to till the thousand mouths of rumor, — 
to spread abroad false reports, — to divert the attention of the public 
from themselves; for they thought every man suspected them, be- 
cause they knew they ought to be suspected. 

The manner in which the compensation for this murder was paid, 
is a circumstance worthy of consideration. By examining the facts 
and dates, it will satisfactorily appear, that Joseph Knapp paid a sum 
of money to Richard Crowninshield in five franc pieces, on the 24th 
of April. On the 21st of April, Joseph Knapp received five hun- 
dred five franc pieces, as the proceeds of an adventure at sea. The 
remainder of this species of currency that came home in the vessel, 
was deposited in a bank at Salem. On Saturday, 24th of April, Frank 
and Richard rode to Wenham. They were there with Joseph an 
hour or more: appeared to be negotiating private business. Rich- 
ard continued in the chaise : Joseph came to the chaise and conver- 
sed with him. These facts are proved by Hart, and Leighton, and 
by Osborn's books. On Saturday evening, about this time, Richard 
Crowninshield is proved to have been at Wenham, with another per- 
son whose appearance corresponds with Frank, by Lummus. Can 
any one doubt this being the same evening.'' What had Richard 
Crowninshield to do at Wenham, with Joseph, unless it were this 
business.^ He was there before the murder ; he was there after the 
murder ; he was there clandestinely, unwilling to be seen. If it 
were not upon this business, let it be told what it was for. Joseph 
Knapp could explain it; Frank Knapp might explain it. But they 
don't explain it; and the inference is against them. 

Immediately after this, Richard passes five franc pieces ; on the 
same evening, 07ie to Lummus, Jive to Palmer ; and near this time, 
George passes three or four in Salem. Here are nine of these 
pieces passed by them in four days; this is extraordinary. It is an 
'\inusual currency : in ordinary business, few men would pass nine 
such pieces in the course of a year. If they were not received in 
this way, why not explain how they came by them? Money was not 
so flush in their pockets, that they could not tell whence it came, if 
it honestly came there. It is extremely important to them to explain 
whence this money came, and they would do it if they could. If, 
then, the price of blood was paid at this time, in the presence and 
with the knowledge of this defendant; does not this prove him to have 
been connected with this conspiracy ^ 

Observe, also, the effect on the mind of Richard, of Palmer's be- 
ing arrested, and committed to prison ; the various efforts he makes 
to discover the fact; the lowering, through the crevices of the rock, 
the pencil and paper for him to write upon ; the sending two lines of 
poetry,with the request that he would return the corresponding lines ; 
the shrill and peculiar whistle — the inimitable exclamations of 
'^Palmer! Palmer! Palmer P'' — all these things prove how great was 
his alarm ; they corroborate Palmer's story, and tend to establish 
the conspiracy. 

59 



466 

Joseph Knapp had a part to act in this matter; he must have 
opened the window, and secreted the key — he had free access to 
every part of the house; he was accustomed to visit there; he went 
in and out at his pleasure — he could do this without heing suspec- 
ted. He is proved to have heen there the Saturday preceding. 

If all these things, taken in connexion, do not prove that Capt. 
White was murdered in pursuance of a conspiracy — then the case 
is at an end. 

Savary's testimony is wholly unexpected. He was called, for a 
difierent purpose. When asked who the person was, that he saw 
come out of Capt. White's yard between three and four o'clock in 
the morning, — he answered Frank Knapp. I am not clear this is 
not true. There may be many circumstances of importance con- 
nected witli this, though we believe the murder to have been commit- 
ted between ten and eleven o'clock. Tlie letter to Dr. Barstow 
states it to have been done about eleven o^lock — it states it to have 
been done icilh a blow on the head, from a weapon loaded with lead. 
Here is too great a correspondence with the reality, not to have 
some meaning to it. Dr. Pcirson was always of the opinion that 
the two classes of wounds were made with different instruments, and 
by different hands. It is possible, that one class was inflicted at 
one time, and the other at another. It is possible, that on the last 
visit, the pulse might not have entirely ceased to beat; and then the 
finishing stroke was given. It is said, when the body was discov- 
ered, some of the wounds weeped, while the others did not. They 
may have been inflicted from mere wantonness. It was known that 
Capt. White was accustomed to keep specie by him in his chamber; 
this perhaps may explain the last visit. It is proved, that this de- 
fendant was in the habit of retiring to bed, and leaving it afterwards, 
without the knowledge of his family; perhaps he did so on this oc- 
casion. We see no reason to doubt the fact; and it does not shake 
our belief that the murder was committed early in the niglit. 

What are the probabilities as to the time of the murder.'' Mr. 
White was an aged man; — he usually retired to bed at about half 
past nine. He slept soundest, in the early part of the night; usually 
awoke in the middle and latter part; and his habits were perfectly 
well known. When would persons, with a knowledge of these facts, 
be n)ost likely to approach him.^ most certainly, in the first hour of 
his sleep. This would be the safest time. If seen then, going to 
or from the house, the appearance would be least suspicious. The 
earlier hour would tlien have l>een most probably selected. 

Gentlemen, I shall dwell no longer on the evidence which tends 
to prove that there was a conspiracy, and that the prisoner was a 
conspirator. All the circum.stances concur to make out this point. 
Not only Palmer swears to it, in effect, and Leighton, but Allen 
mainly supports Palmer, and Osborn's books lend confirmation, so 
far as possible from such a source. Palmer is contradicted in noth- 
ing, cither by any other witness, or any proved circumstance, or 
occurrence. Wliatever could l)e expected to support him, does sup- 
port him. All tlie evidence clearly manifests, 1 tbink, that there 
was a conspiracy; that it originated with J. Knapp; that defendant 
became a party to it, and was one of its conductors, from first to 



467 

last. One of the most powerful circumstances, is Palmer's letter 
from Belfast. The amount of this was, a direct charge on the 
Knapps, of tlie authorship of this murder. How did they treat this 
charge; like honest men, or like guilty men.^ We have seen how it 
was treated. J. Knapp fabricated letters, charging another person, 
and caused them to be put into the postoffice. 

I shall now proceed on the supposition, that it is proved that there 
was a conspiracy to murder Mr. White, and that the prisoner was 
party to it. 

The second, and the material inquiry is, tvas the prisoner present, 
at the murder, aiding and abeiling therein! 

This leads to the legal question in the case, what does the law 
mean, when it says, to charge him as a principal, " he must be pres- 
ent aiding and abetting in the murder." 

In the language of the Inte chief justice, " it is not required that 
the abettor shall be actually upon the spot when the murder is com- 
mitted, or even in sight of the more immediate perpetrator of the 
victim, to make him a principal. If he be at a distance, cooperat- 
ing in the act, by watching to prevent relief, or to give an alarm, 
or to assist his confederate in escape, having knowledge of the purpose 
and object ofihe assassin, — this in the eye of the law is being present, 
aiding and abetting, so as to make him a principal in the murder." 

" If he be at a distance cooperating" — this is not a distance to be 
measured by feet or rods; if the intent to lend aid, combine with a 
knowledge that the murder is to be committed, and the person so 
intending, be so situate that he can by any possibility lend this aid, 
in any manner, then he is present in legal contemplation. He need 
not lend any actual aid: to be ready to assist, is assisting. 

There are two sorts of murder; the distinction between them, it is 
of essential importance to bear in mind. — I. Murder in an affray, 
or upon sudden and unexpected provocation : — 2. Murder secret- 
ly, with a deliberate, predetermined intention to commit murder. 
Under the first class, the question usually is, Whether the offence 
be murder or manslaughter, in the person who commits the deed. 
Under the second class, it is often a question whether others, than 
he who actually did the deed, were present aiding and assisting 
thereto. Offences of this kind ordinarily happen when there is no 
body present except those who go on the same design. If a riot 
should happen in the court house, and one should kill another — 
this may be murder, or it may not, according to the intention with 
which it was done; which is always matter of fact to be collected 
from the circumstances at the time. But in secret murders, pre- 
meditated and determined on, there can be no doubt of the murder- 
ous intention; — there can be no doubt, if a person be present, know- 
ing a murder is to be done, of his concurring in the act. His being 
there is a proof of his intent to aid and abet; else, why is he there? 

It has been contended, that proof must be given that the person 
accused did actually afford aid, did lend a hand in the murder it- 
self; — and without this proof, although he may be near by, he may 
be presumed to be there for an innocent purpose; he may have 
crept silently there to hear the news, or front mere curiosity to see 
what was going on. Preposterous — absurd! Such an idea shocks 



468 

all common sense. A man is found to be a conspirator to do a mur- 
der; he has planned it; he has assisted in arranging the time, the 
place, and the means; and he is found, in the place, and at the time, 
and yet it is suggested that he might have been there, not for co- 
operation and concurrence, but from curiosity! Such an argument 
deserves no answer. It would be difficult to give it one, in decorous 
terms. Is it not to be taken for granted, that a man seeks to ac- 
complish his own purposes? When he has planned a murder, and 
is present at its execution, is he there to forward, or to thwart, his 
own design.'' Is he there to assist, or there to prevent.^ But, " Cu- 
riosity!" — He may be there from mere "curiosity!" Curiosity, to 
witness the success of the execution of his own plan of murder! — 
The very walls of a court house ought not to stand — the plough 
share should run through the ground it stands on, where such an 
argument could find toleration. 

It is not necessary that the abettor should actually lend a hand — 
that he should take a part in the act itself ; if he be present, ready 
to assist — that is assisting. Some of the doctrines advanced would 
acquit the defendant, though he had gone to the bed chamber of the 
deceased, — though he had been standing by, when the assassin gave 
the blow. This is the argument we have heard to day. [The court 
here said, they did not so understand the argument of the counsel 
for defendant. Mr. Dexter said, " the intent and power alone must 
cooperate."] Mr. Webster continued, no doubt the law is, that 
being ready to assist is assisting, if he has the power to assist, in 
case of need. And it is so stated by Foster, who is a high author- 
ity. " If A. happeneth to be present at a murder, for instance, and 
taketh no part in it, nor endeavoureth to prevent it, nor apprehend- 
eth the murderer, nor levyeth hue and cry atler him, this strange 
behavior of his, though highly criminal, will not of itself render 
him either principal or accessory." "But if a fact amounting to 
murder should be committed in prosecution of some unlawful pur- 
pose, {hough it were but a bare trespass, to which A. in the case last 
stated had consented, and he had gone in order to give assistance, 
if need were, for carrying it into execution, this would have amount- 
ed to murder in him, and in every person present and joining with 
him." " If the fact was committed in prosecution of the original 
purpose which was unlawful, the whole party will be involved in the 
guilt of him who gave the blow. For in combinations of this kind, 
the mortal stroke, though given by one of the party, is considered 
in the eye of the law, and of sound reason too, as given by every 
individual present and abetting. The person actually giving the 
stroke is no more than the hand or instrument by which the others 
strike." The author in speaking of being present, means actual 
presence; not actual in opposition to coristructive, for the law knows 
no such distinction. There is but one presence, and this is the 
situation from which aid, or supposed aid may be rendered. The 
law does not say where he is to go, or how near he is to go, but 
somewhere where he may give assistance, or where the perpetrator 
may suppose that he may be assisted by him. Suppose that he is 
acquainted with the design of the murderer, and has a knowledge ^ 
of the time when it is to be carried into effect, and goes out with a 



4^9 

view to render assistance, if need be; why, then, even though the 
murderer does not know of this, the person so going out will be an 
abettor in the murder. It is contended that the prisoner at the bar, 
could not be a principal, he being in Brown street; because he could 
not there render assistance. And you are called upon to determine 
this case, according as you may be of opinion, whether Brown street 
was, or was not, a suitable, convenient, well chosen place, to aid in 
this murder. This is not the true question. The inquiry is, not 
whether you would have selected this place in preference to all 
others, or whether you would have selected it at all; if they chose it, 
why should we doubt about it .'' How do we know the use they intonded 
to make of it, or the kind of aid that he was to atlbrd by being there.' 
The question for you to consider, is, did the defendant go into Brown 
street in aid of i his murder'^ Did he go there by agreement, by ap- 
pointment, with the perpetrator? If so, everything else follows. 
The main thing, indeed the only thing, is to inquire, whether he 
was in Brown street by appointment with Richard Crowninshield — 
it might be to keep general watch; to observe the lights, and advise 
as to time of access; to meet the prisoner on his return, to advise 
him as to his escape; to examine his clothes, to see if any marks of 
blood; to furnish exchange of clothes, or new disguise if necessary; 
to tell him through what streets he could safely retreat, or whether 
he could deposit the club in the place designed: — Or it might be with- 
out any distinct object; but merely to aftbrd that encouragement 
which would be afforded, by Richard Crowninshield's consciousness 
that he was near. It is of no consequence whether, in your opin- 
ion, the place was well chosen or not, to afford aid; — if it was so cho- 
sen, if it was by appointment, that he was there, that is enough. 
Suppose Richard Crowninshield, when applied to to commit the mur- 
der, had said, " I won't do it unless there can be some one near by 
to favor my escape; I won't go unless you will stay in Brown street." 
Upon the gentleman's argument, he would not be an aider and abettor 
in the murder, because the place was not well chosen; though it is 
apparent, that the being in the place chosen, was a condition, with- 
out which, the murder w^uld have never happened. 

You are to consider the defendant as one in the league, in the 
combination to commit the murder. If he was there b^ appoint- 
ment, with the perpetrator, he is an abetter. The concurrence of 
the perpetrator in his being there, is proved by the previous evidence 
of the conspiracy. If Richard Crowninshield, for any purpose 
whatsoever, made it a condition of the agreement, that Frank Knapp 
should stand as backer, then Frank Knapp was an aider and abettor: 
no matter what the aid was, of what sort it was, or degree — be it 
never so little. Even if it were to judge of the hour, when it was 
best to go, or to see when the lights were extinguished, or to give an 
alarm if any one approached. Who better calculated to judge of 
these things than the murderer himself.' and if he so determined 
them, that is sufficient. 

JVoiv as to Ihe feels: Frank Knapp knew that the murder was that 
night to be committed; he was one of the conspirators, he knew the 
object, he knew tlic time. He had that day been to Wcnliani to see 
Joseph, and probably to Danvers to see Richard Crowninshield, for 



470 

he kept his motions secret; he had that day hired ahorse and chaiso 
of Osborn, and attempted to conceal the purpose for which it was 
used, — he had intentionally left tlie place and the price blank on Os- 
born's books. He went to Wenham by the way of Danvers: he had 
been told the week before, to hasten Dick; he had seen the Crovvn- 
inshields several times within a few days; he had a saddle horse the 
Saturday night before; he had seen Mrs. Beckford at Wenham, and 
knew she would not return that night. She had not been away be- 
fore for six weeks, and probably would not soon be again. He had 
just come from there. Every day, for the week previous, he had vis- 
ited one or other of these conspirators, save Sunday, and then prob- 
ably he saw them in town. When he saw Joseph on the 6th, Joseph 
had prepared the house, and would naturally tell him of it; there 
were constant communications between them, daily and nightly vis- 
itation; — too much knowledge of these parties and this transaction, 
to leave a particle of doubt on the mind of any one, that Frank 
Knapp knew that the murder was to be done this night. The hour 
was come, and he knew it; if so, and he was in Brown street, with- 
out explaining why he was there, can the jury for a moment doubt, 
whether he was there to countenance, aid or support; or for curi- 
ositv alone; — or to learn how the wages of sin and death were earn- 
ed by the perpetrator.^ 

[Here Mr. Webster read the law from Hawkins. 1. Hawk. 204. 
Lib. 1. chap. 3'2. sec. 7.] 

The perpetrator would derive courage, and strength, and confi- 
dence, from the knowledge of the fact that one of his associates was 
near by. If he was in Brown street, he could have been there for 
no other purpose. If there for this purpose, then he was, in the lan- 
guage of the law, present, aiding and abetting in the murder. 

His interest lay in being somewhere else. If he had nothing to 
do with the murder, no part to act, why not stay at home.' Why 
should he jeopard his own life, if it was not agreed that he should 
be there ? He would not voluntarily go where the very place would 
probably cause him to swing if detected. He would not voluntari- 
ly assume the place of danger. His taking this place, proves that 
he went to give aid. His staying away would have made an alibi. 
If he ha(* nothing to do with the murder, he would be at home, 
where he could prove his alibi. He knew he was in danger, because 
he was guilty of the conspiracy, and if he had nothing to do, would 
not expose himself to suspicion or detection. 

Did the prisoner at the bar countenance this murder? Did he 
concur, or did he non-concur, in what the perpetrator was about to 
do.? Would he have tried to shield him.? Would he have furnished 
his cloak for protection? Would he have pointed out a safe way of 
retreat? As you would answer these questions, so you should an- 
swer the general question — whether he was there consenting to the 
murder, or whether he was there a spectator only ? 

One word more on this presence, called constructive presence. 
What aid is to be rendered? Where is the line to be drawn, be- 
tween acting, and omitting to act? Suppose he had been in the 
house, suppose he had followed the perpetrator to the chamber, 
what rould he have done? This was to be a murder by stealth; 



471 

it was to be a secret assassination. It was not their purpose to have 
an open combat; they were to approach their victim unawares, and 
silently give the fatal blow. But if he had been in the chamber, no 
one can doubt that he would have been an abettor; because of his 
presence, and ability to render services, if needed. What service 
could he have rendered, if there? Could he have helped him Ay? 
Could he have aided the silence of his movements? Could he have 
facilitated his retreat, on the first alarm? Surely, this was a case, 
where there was more of safety in going alone, than with another; 
where company would only embarrass. Richard Crowninshield 
would prefer to go alone. He knew his errand too well. • His 
nerves needed no collateral support. He was not the man to take 
with him a trembling companion. He would prefer to have his aid 
at a distance. He would not wish to be embarrassed by his pres- 
ence. He would prefer to have him out of the house. He would 
prefer that he should be in Brown street. But, whether in the 
chamber, in the house, in the garden, or in the street, whatsoever 
is aiding in immediate ■presence^ is aiding in constructive presence — 
anything that is aid in one case is aid in the other. 

[Reads from Hawkins. 4. Hawk. 201. Lib. iv. chap. 29. sec. 8.] 

If then the aid be anywhere, that emboldens the perpetrator — 
that affords him hope or contidence in his enterprise, it is the same 
as though he stood at his elbow with his sword drawn: his being 
there ready to act, with the power to act, that is what makes him 
an abettor. [Here Mr. Webster referred to Kelly's case, and 
Hyde's case, &c. cited by counsel for the defendant, and showed 
that they did not militate with the doctrine for which he contended. 
The difference is, in those cases there was open violence; this was 
a case of secret assassination. The aid must meet the occasion. 
Here no acting w^s necessary, but watching, concealment of es- 
cape, management.] 

What are the facts in relation to this presence. Frank Knapp 
is proved a conspirator — proved to have known that the deed" was 
now to be done. Is it not probable that he was in Brown street to 
concur in the murder? There were four conspirators; it was nat- 
ural that some one of them would go with the perpetrator. Richard 
Crowninshield was to be the perpetrator; he was to give the blow. 
No evidence of any casting of the parts for the others. The de- 
fendant would probably be the man to take the second part. He 
was fond of exploits — he was accustomed to the use of sword canes, 
and dirks. If any aid was required, he was the man to give it. 
At least there is no evidence to the contrary of this. 

Aid could not have been received from Joseph Knapp, or from 
George Crowninshield. Joseph Knapp was at Wenham, apd took 
good care to prove that he was there. George Crowninshield has 
proved satisfactorily where he was; that he was in other company, 
such as it was, until 1 1 o'clock. This narrows the inquiry. This 
demands of the prisoner to show, that if he was not in this place, 
where he was? It calls on him loudly to show this, and to show it 
truly. If he could show it, he would do it. If he don't tell, and 
that truly, it is against him. The defence of an alibi is a double 
edged sword. He knew that he was in a situation, that he might 



472 

be called upon to account for himself. If he had had no particular 
appointment, or business to attend to, he would have taken care to 
have been able so to have accounted. He would have been out 
of town, or in sojne good company. Has he accounted for himself 
on that night, to your satisfaction? 

The prisoner has attempted to prove an alibi, in two ways. In 
the first place, by four young men with whom he says he was in com- 
pany on the evening of the murder, from seven o'clock, till near ten 
o'clock ; this depends upon the ccrtaintij of the n[s;ht. In the second 
place, by his family, from ten o'clock atlerwards; this depends upon 
the ccrtainfy of the time of the night. These two classes of proof have 
no connexion with each other. One may be true, and the other 
false, or they may both be true, or both be false. I shall examine 
this testimony with some attention, because on a former trial, it 
made more impression on the minds of the court, than on my own 
mind. I think, when carefully silled and compared, it will be found 
to have in it more of plausibility than reality. 

Mr. Page testifies, tliat on the evening of the 6th of April, he 
was in company with Burchmore, Balch, and Forrester, and that he 
met the defendant about seven o'clock, near the Salem hotel; that he 
afterwards met him at Remond's, about nine o'clock, and that he was 
in company with him a considerable part of the evening. This 
young gentleman is a member of college, and says that he came in 
town tlie Saturday evening previous; that he is now able to say that 
it was the night of the murder, when he walked with Frank Knapp, 
from the recollection of the fact, that he called himself to an ac- 
count, on the morning after the murder, as was natural for men to 
do when an extraordinary occurrence happens. Gentlemen, this 
kind of evidence is not satisfactory; general impressions as to time 
are not to be relied on. If 1 were called upon to state the particu- 
lar day on which any witness testified in this cause, I could not do 
it. Every man will notice the same thing in his own mind. There 
is no one of these young men that could give any account of him- 
self for any other day in the month of April. They are made to re- 
member the fact, and then they think they remember the time. He 
has no means of knowing it was Tuesday more than any other time. 
He did not know it at first, he could not know it afterwards. He 
says he called himself to an account ; this has no more to do with 
the murder, than with the man in the moon. Such testimony is not 
worthy to be relied on, in any forty shilling cause. What occasion 
had he to call himself to an account ? Did he suppose, that he 
should be suspected } Had he any intimation of this conspiracy.? 

Suppose, gentlemen, you were either of you asked, where you 
were, or what you were doing, on the loth day of June ; you could 
not answer this question, without calling to mind some events to 
make it certain. Just as well may you remember on what you dined 
on, each day of the year past. Time is identical. Its subdivisions 
are all alike. No man knows one day from another, or one hour 
from another, but by some fact connected with it. Days and hours 
are not visible to the senses, nor to be apprehended and distinguish- 
ed by the understanding. The flow of time is known only by some- 
thing which makes it; and he who speaks of the date of occurrences 



473 

with nothing to guide his recollection, speaks at random, and is not 
to be relied on. This young gentleman remembers the facts, and 
occurrences — he knows nothing why they should not have happen- 
ed on the evening of the sixth; but he knows no more. All the rest, 
is evidently conjecture or impression. 

Mr. White informs you that he told him he could not tell what 
night it was. The first thoughts are all that are valuable in such 
case. They miss the mark by taking second aim. 

Mr. Balch believes, but is not sure, that he was with Frank Knapp 
on the evening of the murder. He has given different accounts of 
the time. He has no means of making it certain. All he knows is, 
that it was some evening before Fast. But whether Monday, Tues- 
day or Saturday, he cannot tell. 

Mr. Burchmore says, to the best of his belief, it was the evening 
of the murder. Afterwards he attempts to speak positively, from 
recollecting that he mentioned the circumstance to William Feirce, 
as he went to the Mineral Spring on Fast day. Last Monday morn- 
ing, he told Col. Putnam he could not fix the time. This witness 
stands in a much worse plight than either of the others. It is diffi- 
cult to reconcile all he has said, with any belief in the accuracy of 
his recollections. 

Mr. Forrester does not speak with any certainty as to the night; 
and it is very certain, that he told Mr. Loring and others, that he 
did not know what night it was. 

Now, what does the testimony of these four young men amount 
to? The only circumstance, by which they approximate to an iden- 
tifymg of the night is, that three of them say it was cloudy; they 
think their walk was either on Monday or Tuesday evening, and it 
is admitted that Monday evening was clear, whence they draw the 
inference that it must have been Tuesday. 

But, fortunately, there is one fact disclosed in their testimony that 
settles the question. Balch says, that on the evening, whenever it 
was, that he saw the prisoner, the prisoner told him he was going 
out of town on horseback, for a distance of about twenty minutes 
ride, and that he was going to get a horse at Osborn's. This was 
about seven o'clock. At about nine, Balch says he saw the prisoner 
again, and was then told by him, that he had had his ride, and had 
returned. Now it appears by Osborn's books, that the prisoner had 
a saddle horse from his stable, not on Tuesday evening, the night 
of the murder, but on the Saturday evening previous. This fixes 
the time, about which these young men testify, and is a complete 
answer and refutation of the attempted alibi, on Tuesday evening. 

I come now to speak of the testimony adduced by the defendant 
to explain where he was after ten o'clock on the night of the murder. 
This comes chiefly from members of the family; from his father and 
brothers. 

It is agreed that the affidavit of the prisoner, should be received 
as evidence of what his brother, Samuel H. Knapp, would testify, if 
present. S. H. Knapp says, that about ten minutes past ten o'clock, 
his brother F. Knapp, on his way to bed, opened liis clianiber door, 
made some remarks, closed the door, and went to his chamber; and 
that he did not hear him leave it afterwards How is this witness 



474 

able to fix the time at ten minutes past ten ? There is no circum- 
stance mentioned, by which he fixes it. He had been in bed, prob- 
ably asleep, and was aroused fi-om his sleep, by the opening of the 
door. Was he in a situation to speak of time with precision .' Could 
he know, under such circumstances, whether it was ten minutes 
past ten, or ten minutes before eleven, when his brother spoke to 
him? What would be the natural result, in such a case? But we 
are not lefi to conjecture this result. We have positive testimony 
on this point. Mr. Webb tells you that Samuel told him on the 8th 
of June, " that he did not know what time his brother Frank came 
home, and that he was not at home when he went to bed." You 
will consider this testimony of Mr. Webb, as indorsed upon this atfi- 
davit; and with this indorsement upon it, you will give it its due 
weitrht. This statement was made to him after Frank was arrested. 
I come to the testimony of the father. I find myself incapable 
of speaking of him or his testimony with severity. Unfortunate old 
man! Another Lear, in the conduct of his children; another Lear, 
I fear in the effect of his distress upon his mind and understanding. 
He is brouo-ht here to testify, under circumstances that disarm se- 
verity, and call loudly for sympathy. Though it is impossible not 
to see that his story cannot be credited, yet I am not able to speak 
of him otherwise than in sorrow and grief Unhappy father! he 
strives to remember, perhaps persuades himself that he does remem- 
ber, that on the evening of the murder he was himself at home at 
ten'o'clock. He thinks, — or seems to think, that his son came in, at 
about five minutes past ten. He fancies that he remembers his con- 
versation; he thinks he spoke of bolting the door; he thinks he ask- 
ed the time of night; he seems to remember his then gohig to his 
bed. Alas! these are but the swimming fancies of an agitated and 
distressed mind. Alas! they are but the dreams of hope, — its un- 
certain lights, flickering on the thick darkness of parental distress. 
Alas! the miserable father knows nothing, in reality, of all these 

things. • 1 T.T 

Mr. Shepard says that the first conversation he had with Mr. 
Knapp, was soon after the murder, and bifore the arrest of his sons. 
Mr. Knapp says it was after the arrest of his sons. His own fears 
led him to say to Mr. Shepard, that his "son Frank was at home 
that night; and so Phippen told him, — or as Phippen told him." Mr. 
Shepard says that he was struck with the remark at the time, that it 
made an unfavorable impression on his mind; he does not tell you 
what that impression was, but when you connect it with the previous 
inquiry he had made, — whether Frank had continued to associate 
with the Crowninshields? — and recollect that the Crowninshields 
were then known to be suspected of this crime, can you doubt what 
this impression was? can you doubt as to the fears he then had? 

This poor old man tells you, that he was greatly perplexed at the 
time, that he found himself in embarrassed circumstances; that on 
this very night he was engaged in making an assignment of his prop- 
erty to his friend Mr. Shepard. If ever charity should furnish a 
mantle for error, it should be here. Imagination cannot picture a 
more deplorable, distressed condition. 



475 

The same general remarks may be applied to his conversation with 
Mr. Treadwell, as have been made upon that with Mr. Shepard. 
He told him that he believed Frank was at home about the usual 
time. In his conversations with either of these persons, he did not 
pretend to know, of his own knowledge, the time that he came home. 
He now tells you, positively, that he recollects the time, and that he 
so told Mr. Shepard. He is directly contradicted by both these 
witnesses, as respectable men as Salem atlbrds. 

This idea of alibi, is of recent origin. Would Samuel Knapp 
have gone to sea, if it were then thought of? His testimony, if true, 
was too important to be lost. If there be any truth in this part of 
the alibi, it is so near in point of time, that it cannot be relied on. 
The mere variation of half an hour would avoid it. — The mere vari- 
ations of different time pieces would explain it. 

Has the defendant proved where he was on that night .'' If you 
doubt about it — there is an end of it. The burden is upon him, to 
satisfy you beyond all reasonable doubt. Osborn's books, in con- 
nexion with what the young men state, are conclusive, I think, on this 
point. He has not, then, accounted for himself — he has attempted 
it, and has failed. I pray you to remember, gentlemen, that this is 
a case, in which the prisoner would, more than any other, be ration- 
ally able to account for himself, on the night of the murder, if he 
could do so. He was in the conspiracy, he knew the murder was 
then to be committed, and if he himself was to have no hand in its 
actual execution, he would of course, as matter of safety and pre- 
caution, be somewhere else, and be able to prove, afterwards, that 
he had been somewhere else. Having this motive to prove himself 
elsewhere, and the power to do it, if he were elsewhere, his failing 
in such proof must necessarily leave a very strong inference against 
him. 

But, gentlemen, let us now consider what is the evidence produced 
on the part of the government to prove that John Francis Knapp, 
the prisoner at the bar, was in Brown street on the night of the 
murder. This is a point of vital importance in this cause. Unless 
this be made out, beyond reasonable doubt, the law of presence does 
not apply to the case. The government undertake to prove that he 
was present, aiding in the murder, by proving that he was in 
Brown street for this purpose. Now, what are the undoubted facts.'' 
They are, that two persons were seen in that street, at several times, 
during that evening, under suspicious circumstances; — under such 
circumstances as induced those who saw them, to watch their move- 
ments. Of this, there can be no doubt. Mirick saw a man stand- 
ing at the post opposite his store, from fifteen minutes before nine, un- 
til twenty minutes after, dressed in a full trock coat, glazed cap, &c., 
in size and general appearance answering to the prisoner at the bar. 
This person was waiting there; and whenever any one approached 
him, he moved to and from the corner, as though he would avoid be- 
ing suspected, or recognised. Afterwards, two persons were seen 
by Webster, walking in Howard street, with a slow, deliberate move- 
ment, that attracted his attention. This was about half past nine. 
One of these he took to be the prisoner at the bar — the other he did 
not know. 



476 

About half past ten, a person is seen sitting on the ropewalk steps, 
wrapped in a cloak. He drops his head when passed, to avoid be- 
ing known. Shortly after, two persons are seen to meet in this 
street, without ceremony or salutation, and in a hurried manner to 
converse for a short time; then to separate, and run otf with great 
speed. Now, on this same night, a gentleman is slain, — murdered 
in his bed, — his house beiiig entered by stealth from without; and his 
house situated within 300 feet of tliis street. The windows of his 
chamber were in plain sight from tliis street; — a weapon of death is 
afterwards found in a place where these persons were seen to pass — 
in a retired place, around which they had been seen lingering. It is 
now known, that this murder was committed by a conspiracy of four 
persons, conspiring together for this purpose. No account is given 
who these suspected persons thus seen in Brown street and its neigh- 
bourliood were. Now, I ask, gentlemen, whether you or any man 
can doubt, that this nunder was committed by the persons who were 
thus in and about Brown street ? Can any person doubt that they were 
there for purposes connected with this murder.'' If not for this pur- 
pose, what were they there for.? When there is a cause so near at 
hand, Avhy wander into conjecture for an explanation.-' Common 
sense requires you to take the nearest adequate cause for a known 
effect. Who were these suspicious persons in Brown street.? There 
was something extraordinary about them — something noticeable, and 
noticed at the time — something in their appearance that aroused sus- 
picion. And a man is found the next morning murdered in the near 
vicinity. 

Now, so long as no other account shall be given of those suspicious 
persons, so long the inference must remain irresistible, that they 
were the murderers. Let it be remembered, that it is already shown 
that this murder was the result of conspiracy, and of concert; let it 
be remembered, that the house, having been opened from within, was 
entered, by stealth, from without. Let it be remembered that Brown 
street, where these persons were repeatedly seen, under such suspi- 
cious circumstances, was a place from which every occupied room 
in Mr. W' bite's house was clearly seen; let it be remembered, that 
the place, though thus very near to Mr. W^iite's house, was a retired 
and lonely place; and let it be remembered that the instrument of 
death was afterwards found concealed, very near the same spot. 

Must not every man come to the conclusion, that these persons, 
thus seen in Brown street, were the murderers? Every man's own 
judgment, I think, must satisfy him that this must be so. It is a plain 
deduction of common sense. It is a point, on which each one of you 
may reason like a Hale, or a Mansfield. The two occurrences ex- 
plain each other. The murder shows why these persons were thus 
lurking, at that hour, in Brown street; and their lurking in Brown 
street, shows who committed the murder. 

If, then, the persons in and about Brown street, were the plotters 
and executers of the murder of Capt. White, we know who they 
were, and you know that there is one of them. 

This fearful concatenation of circumstances puts him to an account. 
He was a conspirator. He had entered into this plan of murder. 
The murder is connnitted, and he is known to have been within 



477 

three minutes walk of the place. He must account for himself. 
He has attempted this, and failed. Then, with all these general rea- 
sons to show he was actually in Brown street, and his failures in his 
ALIBI, let us see what is the direct proof of his being there. But first, 
let me ask, is it not very remarkable, that there is no attempt to show 
where Richard Crowninshield, jr. was on that night .'^ We bear 
nothing of him. He was seen in none of his usual haunts, about 
the town. Yet, if he was the actual perpetrator of the murder, 
which nobody doubts, he was in the town, somewhere. Can you, 
therefore, entertain a doubt, that he was one of the persons seen in 
Brown street.'' And as to the prisoner, you will recollect, that since 
the testimony of the young men has failed to show where he was 
that evening, the last we hear or know of him, on the day preceding 
the murder, is, that at four o'clock P. M. he was at his brother's, in 
Wenham. He had left home, after dinner, in a manner doubtless 
designed to avoid observation, and had gone to Wenham, probably 
by way of Danvers. As we hear nothing of him, after four o'clock, 
P. M. for the remainder of the day and evening; as he was one of 
the conspirators; as Richard Crowninshield, jr. was another; as Rich- 
ard Crowninshield, jr. was in town in the evening, and yet seen in no 
usual place of resort, the inference is very fair, that Richard Crown- 
inshield, jr. and the prisoner were together, acting in execution of 
their conspiracy. Of the four conspirators, J. J. Knapp, jr. was at 
Wenham, and George Crowninshield has been accounted for; so 
that if the persons seen in Brown street, were the murderers, one of 
them must have been Richard Crowninshield, jr. and the other must 
have been the prisoner at the bar. Now, as to the proof of his iden- 
tity with one of the persons seen in Brown street. 

Mr. Mirick, a cautious witness, examined the person he saw, close- 
ly, in a light night, and says that he thinks the prisoner at the bar, is 
the same person ; and that he should not hesitate at all , if he were seen 
in the same dress. His opinion is formed, partly from his own ob- 
servation, and partly from the description of others. But this de- 
scription turns out to be only in regard to the dress. It is said, that 
he is now more confident, than on the former trial. If he has varied 
in his testimony, make such allowance as you may think proper. I 
do not perceive any material variance. He thought him the same 
person, when he was first brought to court, and as he saw him get 
out of the chaise. This is one of the cases, in which a witness is 
permitted to give an opinion. This witness is as honest as your- 
selves — neither willing nor swift; but he says, he believes it was the 
man — "this is my opinion;" and this it is proper for him to give. 
If partly founded on what he has heard, then his opinion is not to be 
taken; but, if on what hesmv, then you can have no better evidence. 
I lay no stress on similarity of dress. No man will ever be hanged 
by my voice on such evidence. But then it is proper to notice, that 
no inferences drawn from any dissimilarity of dress, can be given in 
the prisoner's favor; because, in fact, the person seen by Mirick 
was dressed like the prisoner. 

The description of^ the person seen by Mirick answers to that of 
the prisoner at the bar. In regard to the supj)()sed discrepancy of 
gtatements, before and now, there would be no end to such minute 



478 

inquiries. It would not be strange if witnesses should vary. I do 
not think mucli of slight shades of variation. If I believe the wit- 
ness is honest, that is enough. If he has expressed himself more 
strongly now than then, this does not prove him false. 

Peter E. Webster saw the prisoner at the bar, as he then thought, 
and still thinks, walking in Howard street at half past nine o'clock. 
He then thought it was Frank Knapp, and has not altered his opin- 
ion since. He knew him well; he had long known him. If he then 
thought it was he, this goes far to prove it. He observed him 
the more, as it was unusual to see gentlemen walk there at that 
hour. It was a retired, lonely street. Now, is there reasonable ' 
doubt that Mr. Webster did see him there that night .? How can you 
have more proof than this? He judged by his walk, by his general 
appearance, by his deportment. We all judge in this manner. If 
you believe he is right, it goes a great way in this case. But then 
this person it is said had a cloak on, and that he could not, there- 
fore, be the same person that Mirick saw. If we were treating of 
men that had no occasion to disguise themselves or their conduct, 
there might be something in this argument. But as it is, there is 
little in it. It may be presumed, that they would change their dress. 
This would help their disguise. What is easier than to throw off a 
cloak, and again put it on? Perhaps he was less fearful of being 
known when alone, than when with the perpetrator. 

Mr. Southwick, swears all that a man can swear. He has the 
best means of judging that could be had at the time. He tells you 
that he left his father's house at half past ten o'clock, and as he pas- 
sed to his own house in Brown street, he saw a man sitting on the steps 
of theropewalk, itc. &c. — that he passed him three times, and each 
time he held down his head, so that he did not see his face. That 
the man had on a cloak, which was not wrapped around him, and 
a glazed cap. That he took the man to be Frank Knapp at the 
time ; that when he went into his house, he told his wife that he thought 
it was Frank Knapp; that he knew him well, having known him frum 
a boy. And ins wife swears that he did so tell her at the time. 
What could mislead this witness at the time ? He was not then sus- 
pecting Frank Knapp of anything. He could not then be influenced 
by any prejudice. If you believe that the witness saw Frank Knapp 
ill tills position, at this time, it proves the case. Whether you be- 
lieve it or not, depends upon the credit of the witness. He swears 
it. If true, it is solid evidence. Mrs. Southwick supports her hus- 
band. Are they true? Are they worthy of belief? If he deserves 
the epithets applied to him, then he ought not to be believed. In 
this fact, they cannot be mistaken, — they are right, or they are per- 
jured. As to his nut speaking to Frank Knapp, that depends upon 
their intimacy. But a very good reason is, Frank chose to disguise him- 
self This makes nothing against his credit. But it is said that he 
should not be believed. And why ? Because, it is said, he himself 
now tells you that when he testified before the grand jury at Ipswich, 
he did not then say that he thought the person he saw in Brown 
street was Frank Knapp, but that " the person was about the size of 
Selman." The means of attacking him, therefore, come from him- 
self If he is a false man, why should he tell truths against himself? 



479 

they rely on his veracity to prove that he is a liar. Before you can 
come to this conclusion, you will consider, whether all the circum- 
stances are now known, that should have a bearing on this point. 
Suppose that when he was before the grand jury he was asked by the 
attorney this question, " was the person you saw in Brown street 
about the size of Selman ?" and he answered, yes. This was all true. 
Suppose also that he expected to be inquired of further, and no fur- 
ther questions were put to him? Would it not be extremely hard to 
impute to him perjury for this? It is not uncommon for witnesses, 
to think that they have done all their duty, when they have answered 
the questions put to them? But suppose that we admit, that he did 
not then tell all he knew, this does not affect the fad at all; because 
he did tell, at the time, in the hearing of others, that the person he 
saw was Frank Knapp. There is not the slightest suggestion against 
the veracity or accuracy of Mrs. Southwick. Now, she swears pos- 
itively, that her husband came into the house and told her that he 
had seen a person, on the ropewalk steps, and believed it was 
Frank Knapp. 

It is said, that Mr. Southwick is contradicted, also, by Mr. Shil- 
laber. I do not so understand Mr. Shillaber's testimony. I think 
what they both testify is reconcilable, and consistent. My learned 
brother said on a similar occasion, that there is more probability in 
such cases, that the persons hearing should misunderstand, than that 
the person speaking, should contradict himself I think the same 
remarks applicable here. 

You have all witnessed the uncertainty of testimony, when wit- 
nesses are called to testify what other witnesses said. Several re- 
spectable counsellors have been called on, on this occasion, to give 
testimony of that sort. They have, every one of them, given diffe- 
rent versions. They all took minutes at the time, and without doubt 
intend to state the truth. But still they differ. Mr. Shillaber's 
version is different from everything that Southwick has stated else- 
where. But little reliance is to be placed on slight variations in tes- 
timony, unless they are manifestly intentional. I think that Mr. 
Shillaber must be satisfied that he did not rightly understand Mr. 
Southwick. I confess I misunderstood Mr. Shillaber on the former 
trial, if I now rightly understand him. I therefore, did not then re- 
call Mr. Southwick to the stand. Mr. Southwick, as I read it, un- 
derstood Mr. Shillaber as asking him about a person coming out of 
Newbury street, and whether, for aught he knew, it might not be 
Richard Crowninshield, jr. He answered that he could not tell. 
He did not understand Mr. Shillaber, as questioning him, as to the • 
person, whom he saw sitting on the steps of the ropewalk. South- 
wick, on this trial, having heard Mr. Shillaber, has been recalled to 
the stand, and states that Mr. Shillaber entirely misunderstood him. 
This is certainly most probable, because the controlling fact in the 
case is not controverted; that is, that Southwick did tell his wife, at 
the very moment he entered his house, that he had seen a person on 
the ropewalk steps, whom he believed to be Frank Knapp. Nothing 
can prove, with more certainty than this, that Southwick, at the time, 
thoiio^hl the person whom he thus saw, to be the prisoner at the bar. 

Mr. Bray is an acknowledged accurate and intelligent witness. 



480 



He was highly complimented by my brother, on the former trial, al- 
though he now charges him with varying his testimony. What could 
be his motive? You will be slow in imputing to him any design of 
this kind. I deny aUogether, that there is any contradiction. — 
There may be differences, but not contradiction. These arise from 
the difference in the questions put; the difference between believing 
and knowino-. On the first trial, he said he did not hiow the person, 
and now says the same. Then we did not do all we had a right to 
do. We did not ask him who he thoughl it was. Now, when so 
asked, he says he believes it was the prisoner at the bar. If he had 
then been asked this question, he would have given the same answer. 
That he has expressed himself stronger, I admit; but he has .not 
contradicted himself He is more confident now; and that is all. 
A man may not assert a thing, and still not have any doubt upon it. 
Cannot every man see this distinction to be consistent ? I leave 
him in that attitude; that only is the difference. On questions of 
identity, opinion is evidence. We may ask the witness, either if he 
Anew who the person seen was, or who he thinks he was. And he 
may well answer, as Capt. Bray has answered, that he does not 
know who it was, but that he tlihiks it was the prisoner. 

We have ofiered to produce witnesses to prove, that as soon as 
Bray saw the prisoner, he pronounced him the same person. We 
are not at liberty to call them to corroborate our own witness. How 
then could this "fact of prisoner's being in Brown street, be better 
proved t If ten witness(>s had testified to it, it would be no better. 
Two men, who knew him well, took it to be Frank Knapp, and one 
of them so said, when there was nothing to mislead them. Two 
others, that examined him closely, now swear to their opinion, that 
he is the man. 

Miss Jaqueth, saw three persons pass by the ropewalk, several 
evenings before the murder. She saw one of them pointing towards 
Mr. White's house. She noticed that another had something which 
appeared to be like an instrument of music ; that he put it behind 
him, and attempted to conceal it. Who were these persons ? Tbis 
was but a few steps from the place where this apparent instrument 
of music (of music such as Richard Crowninshield, jr. spoke of to 
Palmer) was afterwards found. These facts prove this a point of 
rendezvous for these parties. They show Brown street to have 
been the place for consultation, and observation; and to this purpose 
it was well suited. 

Mr. Burns's testimony is also important. What was the defend- 
ant's object, in his private conversation with Burns ? He knew that 
Burns was out that night ; that he lived near Brown street, and that 
he had probal)ly seen him; and he wished him to say nothing. He 
said to Burns, "" if you saw any of your friends out that night, say 
nothing about it; my brother Jo. and I are your friends." This is 
plain proof, that he wished to say to him, if you saw me in Brown - 
street that night, say notbing about it. 

But il is said that Burns ougbt not to be believed, because he 
mistook the color of the dagger, and because he has varied in his 
description of it. These are sliglrt circumstances, if his general 
character be good. To my mind tliey are of no importance. It is 



481 

for you to make what deduction you may think proper, on this ac- 
count, from the weight of his evidence. His conversation with 
Burns, if Burns is believed, shows two things; first, that he desired 
Burns not to mention it, if he had seen him on the night of the mur- 
der; second, that he wished to tix the charge of murder on Mr. 
Stephen White. Both of these prove his own guilt. 

1 think you will be of opinion, gentlemen, that Brown street was 
a probable place for the conspirators to assemble, and for an aid to 
be. If we knew their whole plan, and if we were skilled to judge 
in such a case, then we could perhaps determine on this point better. 
But it is a retired place, and still commands a full view of the house ; 
— a lonely place, but still a place of observation. Not so lonely that 
a person would excite suspicion to be seen walking there in an or- 
dinary manner ; — not so pul)lic as to be noticed by many. It is near 
enough to the scene of action in point of law. It was their point of 
cenlralihj. The club was found near the spot — in a place provided 
for it — in a place that had been previously hunted out — in a concer- 
ted place of concealment. Here ivas their point of rendezvous — Here 
might the lights be seen — Here might an aid be secreted — Here 
was he within call — Here might he be aroused by the sound of the 
whisllt — Here might he carry the weapon — Here might he receive 
the murderer, after the murder. 

Then, gentlemen, the general question occurs, is it satisfactorily 
proved, by all these facts and circumstances, that the defendant was 
in and about Brown street, on the night of the murder ? Consider- 
ing, that tlie murder was effected by a conspiracy; — considering, 
that he was one of the four conspirators; — considering, that two of 
the conspirators have accounted for themselves, on the night of the 
murder, and were not in Brown street; — considering that the pris- 
oner does not account for himself, nor show where he was; — con- 
sidering that Richard Crowniiishield, the other conspirator, and the 
perpetrator, is not accounted for, nor shown to be elsewhere; — con- 
sidering, that it is now past all doubt that two persons were seen in 
and about Brown street, at different times, lurking, avoiding obser- 
vation, and exciting so much suspicion that the neighbours actually 
watched them; — considering, that it these persons, thus lurking in 
Brown street, at that hour, were not the murderers, it remains, to 
this day, wholly unknown who they were, or what their business 
was; — considering the testimony of Miss Jaqueth, and that the club 
was afterwards found near this place; — considering, finally, that 
Webster and Southwick saw these persons, and then took one of 
them for the defendant, and that Southwick then told- his wife so, 
and that Bray and Mirick examined them closely, and now swear to 
their belief that the prisoner was one of them ; it is for you to say, 
putting these considerations together, whether you believe the pris- 
oner was actually in Brown street, at the time of the murder. 

By the counsel for the defendant, nuich stress has been laid upon 
the questfen, whether Brown street was a place in which aid could 
be given ? a pilace in which actual assistance could be rendered in 
this transaction ? This must be mainly decided, by their own opin- 
ion who selected the place; by what they thought at the time, ac- 
cording to their plan of operation. 

• 61 RR 



482 

If it was agreed that the prisoner should be there to assist, it 
is enough. If they thought the phice proper for their purpose, 
according to their plan, it is sufficient. 

Suppose we could prove expressly, that they agreed that Frank 
should be there, and he was there ; and you should think it not a 
well chosen place, tor aiding and abetting, must he be acquitted ? 
No ! — it is not what / think, or ijon think, of the appropriateness of 
the place — it is what iluy thought at Ihe time. 

If the prisoner was in Brown street, by appointment and agree- 
ment with the perpetrator, for the purpose of giving assistance, if 
assistance should be needed, it may safely be presumed that the 
place was suited to such assistance, as it was supposed by the par- 
ties might chance to become requisite. 

If in Brown street, was he there by appointment } was he there 
to aid, if aid Avere necessary } was he there for, or against, the 
murderer '^ to concur, or to oppose ? to favor or to thwart .? Did 
the perpetrator know he was there — there waiting ? If so, then it 
follows, he was there by appointment. He was at the post, half an 
hour ; he was waiting for somebody. This proves appoinlmenl — 
arrangement — previous agreement; then it follows, he was there to 
aid, — to encourage, — to embolden the perpetrator, and that is 
enough. If he were in such a situation as to afford aid, or that he 
was relied upon for aid, — then he was aiding and abetting. It is 
enough, that the conspirator desired to have him there. Besides, it 
may be well said, that he could afford just as much aid there, as if 
he had been in Essex street — as if he had been standing even at the 
gate, or at the window. It was not an act of power against power 
that was to be done, — it was a secret act, to be done by stealth. 
The aid was to be placed in a position secure from observation : — 
It was important to the security of both, that he should be in a lone- 
ly place. Now, it is obvious, that there are many purposes for 
which he might be in Brown street. 

1. Richard Crowninshield might have been secreted in the gar- 
den, and waiting for a signal. 

2. Or he might be in Brown street, to advise him as to the time 
of making his entry into the house. 

3. Or to favor his escape. 

4. Or to see if the street was clear when he came out. 

5. Or to conceal the weapon or the clothes. 

6. To be ready for any other unforeseen contingency, 
Richard Crowninshield lived in Danvers — he would retire the most 

secret way. Brown street is that way; if you find him there, can 
you doubt, why he was there ! 

If, gentlemen, the prisoner went into Brown street, by appoint- 
ment with the perpetrator, to render aid or encouragement, in any 
of these ways, he was present^ in legal contemplation, aiding and 
abetting, in this murder. It is not necessary that he should have 
done anything; it is enough, that he was ready to act, and in a place 
to act. If his being in Brown street, by appointment, at the time of 
the murder, emboldened the purpose, and encouraged the heart of 
the murderer, by the hope of instant aid, if aid should become neces- 



483 

eary, then, without doubt, he was present, aiding and abetting, and 
was a principal in the murder. 

I now proceed, gentlemen, to the consideration of the testimony 
of Mr. Colman. Although this evidence bears on every material 
part of the cause, I have purposely avoided every comment on it, 
till the present moment, when I have done with the other evidence in 
the case. As to the admission of this evidence, there has been a 
great struggle, and its importance demanded it. The general rule 
of law is, that confessions are to be received as evidence. They 
are entitled to great or to little consideration, according to the circum- 
stances under which they are made. Voluntary, deliberate confes- 
sions are the most important and satisfactory evidence. But confes- 
sions, hastily made, or improperly obtained, are entitled to little or 
no consideration. It is always to be inquired, whether they were 
purely voluntary, or were made under any undue influence of hope 
or fear; for, in general, if any influence were exerted on the mind of 
the person confessing, such confessions are not to be submitted to a 
jury. 

Who is Mr. Colman? He is an intelligent, accurate, and cau- 
tious witness. A gentleman of high and well known character; and 
of unquestionable veracity. As a clergyman, highly respectable; as 
a man, of fair name and fame. 

Why was Mr. Colman with the prisoner? Joseph J. Knapp was 
his parishioner; he was the head of a family, and had been mar- 
ried by Mr. Colman. The interests of his family were dear to him. 
He felt for their afflictions, and was anxious to alleviate their suf- 
ferings. He went from the purest and best of motives to visit Jo- 
seph Knapp. He came to save, not to destroy; to rescue, not to 
take away life. In this family, he thought there might be a chance 
to save one. It is a misconstruction of Mr. Cohnan's motives, at 
once the most strange and the most uncharitable, a perversion of all 
just views of his conduct and intentions, the most unaccountable, to 
represent him as acting, on this occasion, in hostility to any one, or 
as desirous of injuring or endangering any one. He has stated his 
own motives, and his own conduct, in a manner to command univer- 
sal belief, and universal respect. For intelligence, for consistency, 
for accuracy, for caution, for candor, never did witness acquit himself 
better, or stand fairer. In all that he did, as a man, and all he has 
said, as a witness, he has shown himself worthy of entire regard. 

Now, gentlemen, very important confessions made by the prisoner, 
are sworn to by Mr. Colman. They were made in the prisoner's 
cell, where Mr. Colman had gone with the prisoner's. brother, N. 
P. Knapp. Whatever conversation took place, was in the presenbe 
of N. P. Knapp. Now, on the part of the prisoner, two things are 
asserted; tirst, that such inducements were suggested to the prison- 
er, in this interview, that any confessions by him ought not to be re- 
ceived. Second, that, in point of fact, he made no such confessions, 
as Mr. Colman testilies to, nor, indeed, any confessions at all. These 
two propositions are attempted to be supported by the testimony of 
N. P. Knapp. These two witnesses, Mr. Colman and N. P. Knapp, 
differ entirely. There is no possibility of reconciling them. No 
charity can cover both. One or the other has sworn falsely. If N 



484 

P. Knapp be believed, Mr. Cohnan's testimony must be wholly dis- 
regarded. It is, then, a question of credit, a question of belief, be- 
tween the two witnesses. As you decide between these, so you 
will decide on all this part of the case. 

Mr. Colman has given you a plain narrative, a consistent account, 
and has uniformly stated the same things. He is not contradicted 
by anything in the case, except Phippen Knapp. He is influenced 
as far as we can see by no bias, or prejudice, any more than other 
men, except so far as his character is now at stake. He has feelings 
on this point, doubtless, and ought to have. If what he has stated 
be not true, I cannot see any ground for his escape. If he be a true 
man, he must have heard what he testihes. No treachery of mem- 
ory, brings to memory things that never took place. There is no 
reconciling his evidence with good intention, if the facts are not as 
he states them. He is on trial, as to his veracity. 

The relation in which the other witness stands, deserves your 
careful consideration. He is a member of the family. He has the 
lives of two brothers depending, as he may think, on the efiect af 
his evidence; — depending, on every word he speaks. I hope he has 
not another resi>onsibility, resting upon him. By the advice of a 
friend, and that friend Mr. Colman, J. Knapp made a full and free 
contl'ssion, and obtained a promise of pardon. He has since, as you 
know, probably by the advice of other friends, retracted that confes- 
sion, and rejected the offered pardon. Events will show, who of these 
friends and advisers, advised him best, and betliended him most. In 
the meantime, if this brother, the witness, be one of these advisers, 
and advised the retraction, he has, most emphatically, the lives of 
his brothers, resting upon his evidence, and upon his conduct. Com- 
pare the situation of these two witnesses. Do you not see mighty 
motive enough on the orie side, and want-of all motive on the other? 
I would gladly find an apology tor that witness, in his agonized feel- 
ings, — in his distressed situation; — in the agitation of that hour, or 
of this. I would gladly impute it to error, or to want of recollec- 
tion, to confusion of mind, or disturl)ance of feeling. — I would glad- 
ly mipute to any pardonable source, that which cannot be recon- 
ciled to facts, and to truth; but, even in a case calling for so much 
sympathy, justice must yet prevail, and we must come to the conclu 
sion, however reluctantly, which that demands from us. 

It is said, Phippen Knapp was probably correct, because he knew 
he should be called as a witness. Witness — to what.^ When he 
says there was no confession, what could he expect to bear witness 
of .^ But I do not put it on the ground that he did not hear; I am 
compelled to put it on the other ground — that he did hear, and does 
not now truly tell what he heard. 

If Mr. Colman were out of the case, there are other reasons why 
the story of Piiippen Knapp should not be believed. It has in it 
inherent iniprnlxihiiities. It is unnatural, and inconsistent with the 
accompanying circumstances. He tells you that they went "to the 
cell of Frank, to see if he had any o!)jection to taking a trial, and 
suffering his !)rofher to accept the ()ff<>r of pardon:" in other words, 
to obtain Frank's consent t;) Joseph's making a confession; and in 
case this consent was not obtained, that the pardon would be offered 



485 

to Frank, &c. Did they bandy about the chance of life, between 
these two, in this way ? Did Mr. Cohnan, after having given this 
pledge to Joseph, after having received a disclosure from Joseph, 
go to the cell of Frank for such a purpose as this ? It is impossi- 
ble; it cannot be so. 

Again: We know that Mr. Colman found the club the next day; 
that he went directly to the place of deposit, and found it at the tirst 
attempt, — exactly where he says he had been informed it was. jVow 
Phippen Knapp says, that Frank had stated nothing respecting the 
club, that it was not mentioned in that conversation. He says, also, 
that he was present in the cell of Joseph all the time that Mr. Col- 
man was there, that he l)elieves he heard all that was said in Joseph's 
cell; and that he did not himself know where the club was, and never 
had known where it was, until he heard it stated in court. Now, it 
is certain, that Mr. Colman says, he did not learn the particular 
place of deposit of the club from Joseph; that he only learned from 
him that it was deposited under the steps of the Howard street 
meeting-bouse, without defining the particular steps. It is certain, 
also, that he had more knowledge of the position of the club, than 
this — else how could he have placed his hand on it so readily.? — and 
where else could he have obtained this knowledge, except from 
Frank .? [Here Mr. Dexter said that Mr. Colman had had other 
interviews with Joseph, and might have derived the information from 
him at previous visits. Mr. Webster replied, that Mr. Colman had 
testified that he learned nothing in relation to the club until this vis- 
it. Mr. Dexter, denied there being any such testimony. Mr. Col- 
man's evidence was then read from the notes of the judges, and sev- 
eral other persons, and Mr. Webster then proceeded.] — My point is, 
to show that Phippen Knapp's story is not true, is not consistent 
with itself. That taking it for granted, as he says, that he heard all 
that was said to ]\Ir. Colman in both cells, by Joseph, and by Frank; 
and that Joseph did not state particularly where the club was deposit- 
ed; and that he knew as much about the place of deposit of the club, 
as Mr. Colman knew; why then, Mr. Colman must either have been 
miraculously informed respecting the club, or Phippen Knapp has 
not told you the whole truth. There is no reconciling this, without 
supposing Mr. Colman has misrepresented what took place in Jo- 
seph's cell, as well as what took place in Frank's cell. 

Again: Phippen Knapp is directly contradicted by Mr. Wheat- 
land. Mr. Wheatland tells the same story as coming from Phippen 
Knapp, as Mr. Colman now tells. Here there are two against one. 
Phippen Knapp says that Frank made no confessions, and that he 
said he had none to make. In this he is contradicted by Wheatland. 
He, Phippen Knapp, told Wheatland, that Mr. Colinan did ask 
Frank some questions, and that Frank answered them. He told 
him also what these answers were. Wheatland does not recollect 
the questions or answers, but recollects his reply; which was, "Is 
not this premahn-c! I tliink this answer is sufficient to make Frank 
a principal." Here Phippen Knapp opposes himself to Wheatland, 
as well as to Mr. Colnuui. Do you l)elieve Pliippen Knapp, against 
these two respectable witnesses — or them against him? 



RR 



486 

Is not Mr. Colman's testimony credible, natural, and proper? To 
judge of this, you must go back to that scene. 

The murder had been committed; the two Knapps were now ar- 
rested; four persons were already in gaol supposed to be concerned 
in it — the Crowninshields and Selman and Chase. Another person 
at the eastward was supposed to be in the plot; it was important to 
learn the facts. To do this, some one of those suspected must be 
admitted to turn states' witness. The contest was, loho should have 
this privilege'? It was understood that it was about to be offered to 
Palmer, then in Maine: there was no good reason why he should 
have the preference. Mr. Colman felt interested for the family of 
the Knapps, and particularly for Joseph. He was a young man 
who had hitherto sustained a fair standing in society; he was a hus- 
band. Mr. Colman was particularly intimate with his family. With 
these views he went to the prison. He believed that he might safe- 
ly converse with the prisoner, because he thought confessions made 
to ja clergyman were sacred, and that he could not be called upon to 
disclose them. He went, the first time, in the morning, and was 
requested to come again. He went again at three o'clock; and was 
requested to call again at five o'clock. In the meantime he saw the 
father and Phippen, and they wished he would not go again, be- 
cause it would be said the prisoners were making confession. He 
said he had engaged to go again at five o'clock; but would not, if Phip- 
pen would excuse liim to Joseph. Phippen engaged to do this, and 
to meet him at his office at five o'clock. Mr. Colman went to the 
office at the time, and waited; but as Phippen was not there, he walk- 
ed down street and saw him coming from the gaol. He met him, 
and while in conversation, near the church, he saw Mrs. Beckford 
and JVTrs. Knapp, going in a chaise towards the gaol. He hastened 
to meet them, as he thought it not proper for them to go in at that 
time. While conversing with them near the gaol, he received two 
distinct messages from Joseph, that he wished to see him. He 
thought it proper to go: he then went to Joseph's cell, and while 
there it was that the disclosures were made. Before Joseph had 
finished his statement, Phippeu came to the door; he was soon alter 
admitted. A short interval ensued, and they went together to the 
cell of Frank. Mr. Colman went in by invitation of Phippen: he 
had come directly from the ceil of Joseph^ where he had for the first 
time learned the incidents of the tragedy. He was incredulous as 
to some of the facts which he had learned, they were so different 
from his previous impressions. He was desirous of knowing wheth- 
er he could place confidence in what Joseph had told him — he there- 
fore put the questions to Frank, as he has testified before you; in 
answer to which, Frank Knapp informed him, 

1 . " That the murder took place between ten and eleven o'clock." 

2. "That Richard Crowninshield was alone in the house." 

3. " That he, Frank Knapp, went home afterwards." 

4. " That the club was deposited under the steps of the Howard 
street meeting-house, and under the part nearest the burying ground, 
in a rat hole, &c." 

5. " That the dagger or daggers had been worked up at the fac- 
tory." 



487 

It is said that these five answers just fit the case; that they are 
just what was wanted, and neither more or less. True, they are, 
but the reason is, because truth always fits: truth is always congru- 
ous, and agrees with itself. Every truth in the universe agrees 
with every other truth in the universe; whereas falsehoods not only 
disagree with truths, but usually quarrel among themselves. Sure- 
ly Mr. Colman is influenced by no bias — no prejudice; he has no 
feelings to warp him — except now, he is contradicted, he may feel 
an interest to be believed. 

If you believe Mr. Colman, then the evidence is fairly in the case. 

I shall now proceed on the ground that you do beheve Mr. Col- 
man. 

When told that Joseph had determined to confess, the defendant 
said, — " It is hard, or unfair, that Joseph should have the benefit of 
confessing, since the thing was done for his benefit." What thing 
was done for his benefit .'' Does not this carry an implication of the 
guilt of the defendant.? Does it not show that he had a knowledge 
of the object, and history of the murder.? 

The defendant said, " he told Joseph when he proposed it, that it 
was a silly business, and would get us into trouble." He knew, 
then, what this business was; he knew that Joseph proposed it, and 
that he agreed to it, else he could not get us into trouble; he under- 
stood its bearing, and its consequences. Thus much was said un- 
der circumstances, that make it clearly evidence against him, before 
there is any pretence of an inducement held out. And does not this 
prove him to have had a knowledge of the conspiracy.? 

He knew the daggers had been destroyed, and he knew who com- 
mitted the murder. How could he have innocently known these 
facts.? Why, if by Richard's story, this shows him guilty of a 
knowledge of the murder, and of the conspiracy. More than all, he 
knew when the deed was done, and that he went home aftenvards. 
This shows his participation in that deed. " Went home after- 
wards" — homej'rum ichat scene'! — home,yrom what fact? — home,yro«i 
ivhal transaction i — home, fromivhat place? This confirms the sup- 
position that the prisoner was in Brown street tor the purposes 
ascribed to him. These questions were directly put, and directly 
answered. He does not intimate that he received the information 
from another. Now, if he knows the time, and went home after- 
wards, and does not excuse himself, — is not this an admission that he 
had a hand in this murder.? Already proved to be a conspirator in 
the murder, he now confesses that he knew who did it — at what time 
it was done, was himself out of his own house at the time, and went 
home afterwards. Is not this conclusive, if not e\])hiined? Then 
comes the club. He told where it was. This is like possession of 
stolen goods. He is charged with tlieciiiltv knowlediro of this con- 
cealment. He must show, not saij, how he came by this knowledge. 
If a man be found with stolen goods, he must jrrove iiow lie came by 
them. The place of deposit of the club was premeditated and se- 
lected, and he knew where it was. 

Joseph Knapp was an accessory, and accessory only; he knew on- 
ly what was told him. But the prisoner knew the particular spot in 



488 

which the club might be found. This shows his knowledge something 
more, than that of an accessory. 

This presumption must be rebutted by evidence, or it stands strong 
against him. He has too much knowledge of this transaction, to 
have come innocently by it. It must stand against him until he ex- 
plains it. 

This testimony of Mr. Colman is represented as new matter, and 
therefore an attempt has been made to excite a prejudice against it. 
It is not so. How little is there in it, after all, that did not appear 
from other sources.? It is mainly contirmatory. Compare what you 
learn from this confession, with what you before knew: — 
As to its being proposed by Joseph — was not that true? 
As to Richard's being alone, &c. in the house— was not that true.'' 
As to the daggers — was not that true? 
As to the time of the murder — was not that true? 
As to his being out that i)ight — was not that true? 
As to his returning afterwards — was not that true? 
As to the club — was not that true? 

So this information confirms what was known before, and fully con- 
firms it. 

One word, as to the interview between Mr. Colman and Phippen 
Knap,p on the turnpike. It is said that Mr. Colman's conduct in this 
matter, is inconsistent with his testimony. There does not appear 
to me to be any inconsistency. He tells you that his object was to 
save Joseph, and to hurt no one; and least of all the prisoner at the 
bar. He had, probably, told Mr. White, the substance of what he 
heard at the prison. He had probably told hirn that Frank confirmed 
what Joseph had confessed. He was unwilling to be the instrument 
of harm to Frank. He therefore, at the request of Phippen Knapp, 
wrote a note to Mr. White, requesting him to consider Joseph as au- 
thority for the information he had received. He tells you that this 
is the only thing he has to regret; as it may seem to be an evasion, — 
as he doubts whether it was entirely correct. If it was an evasion, 
if it was a deviation, if it was an error, it was an error of mercy — an 
error of kindness; an error that proves he had no hostility to the 
prisoner at the bar. It does not in the least vary his testimony, or 
atfect its correctness. Gentlemen, I look on the evidence of Mr. 
Colman as highly important; not as bringing into the cause new 
facts, but as confirming, in a very satisfactory manner, other evi- 
dence. It is incredible, that he can be false, and that he is seeking 
the prisoner's life, through false swearing. If he is true, it is in- 
credible that the prisoner can be innocent. 

Gentlemen, I have gone through with the evidence in this case, 
and have endeavoured to state it plainly and fairly, before you. I 
think there are conclusions to be drawn from it, which you cannot 
doubt. I think you cannot doubt, that there was a conspiracy 
formed for the purpose of committing this murder, and who the con- 
spirators were. 

That you cannot doubt, that the Crowninshields and the Knapps, 
were the parties in this conspiracy. 

That you cannot doubt, that the prisoner at the bar knew that the 
murder was to be done on the night of the 6th of April. 



489 

That you cannot doubt, that the murderers of Capt. White were 
the suspicious persons seen in and about Brown street on that 
night. 

That you cannot doubt, that Richard Crowninshield was the per- 
petrator of that crime. 

That you cannot doubt, that the prisoner at the bar was in Brown 
street on that night. 

If there, then it must be by agreement — to countenance, to aid 
the perpetrator. And if so, then he is guilty as Principal. 

Gentlemen, — Your whole concern should be to do your duty, and 
leave consequences to take care of themselves. You will receive 
the law from the court. Your verdict, it is true, may endanger the 
prisoner's life; but then, it is to save other lives. If the prisoner's 
guilt has been shown and proved, beyond all reasonable doubt, you 
will convict him. If such reasonable doubts of guilt still remain 
you will acquit him. You are the judges of the whole case. You 
owe a duty to the public, as well as to the prisoner at the bar. You 
cannot presume to be wiser than the law. Your duty is a plain 
straight Ibrward one. Doubtless, we would all judge him in mercy! 

Towards him, as an individual, the law inculcates no hostility; but 

towards him, if proved to be a murderer, the law, and the oaths you 
have taken, and public justice, demand that you do your duty. 

With consciences satisfied with the discharge of duty, no conse- 
quences can harm you. (There is no evil that we cannot either face 
or fly from, but the consciousness of duty disregarded.y' 

A sense of duty pursues us ever. It is omnipresent, like the 
Deity. If we take to ourselves the wings of the morning and dwell 
in the utmost parts of the seas, duty performed, or duty violated, is 
still with us, for our happiness, or our misery. If we say the dark- 
ness shall cover us, in the darkness as in the light, our obligations 
are yet with us. We cannot escape their power, nor tly from their 
presence. They are with us in this life, will be with us at its close; 
and in that scene of inconceivable solemnity, which lies yet farther 
onward — we shall still find ourselves surrounded by the conscious- 
ness of duty, to pain us, wherever it has been violated, and to con- 
sole us so far as God may have given us grace to perform it. 



62 



REMARKS 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, ON 
THE BILL TO AMEND THE JUDICIARY SYSTE3I. JAN. 4, 1826. 



[This bill proposed that the Supreme Court of tiie United States .should thereiilter 
consist of a Chief Justice and nine Associate Justices, and provided for the appointment 
of liree Additional Associate Justices of said Court. 

That the seventh Judicial Circuit Court of the United States shoulil thereafter consist of 
the Districts of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois ; the eighth Circuit, of the Districts of Ken 
tiicky and Missouri; the ninth Circuit, of the Districts of Tennessee and Alabama; and 
the tenth Circuit, of the Districts of Louisiana and iMississippi. 

It repealed so much of any act or acts of Congress, as vested in the District Coiuts of the 
United States in the Districts of Indiana, Illinois, Missoiui, Mis.-^issippi, Alabama, and 
Louisiana, the powers and jurisdiction of Circuit Courts, ami jjiovided that there should be 
thereafter Circuit Courts for said Districts, to be composed of the Justice of the Supreme 
Court, assigned or allotted to the Circuit to which such Districts might respectively belong, 
and of the District Judge of such Districts.] 

Mr. Webster said that the bill, which was under consideration of 
the Committee, was so simple in its provisions, and so unembarrass- 
ed with detail, that little or nothing, in the way of explanation, 
merely, was probably expected from the Committee. But the gen- 
eral importance of the subject, and the material change which the 
proposed measure embraces, demanded some exposition of the rea- 
sons which had led the Committee on the Judiciary to submit it to 
the consideratioia of the House. 

The occasion naturally presents two inquiries: first, whether any 
evils exist in the administration of justice in the Courts of the 
United States; and, secondly, whether, if there be such evils, the 
proposed bill is a proper and suitable remedy. On both these points, 
it is my duty to express the sentiments which the Committee on the 
Judiciary entertain. Perhaps, however, Mr. Chairman, before 
entering into a discussion of those two questions, I may be allowed 
to state something of the history of this Department of the Govern- 
ment, and to advert to the several laws which have been, from time 
to time, enacted, respecting its. organization. 

The Judicial power, which, by the Constitution, was to be exer- 
cised by the present Government, necessai ily engaged the attention 
of the first Congress. The subject fell into the hands of very able 
men, and it may well excite astonishment that the system which they 
prepared and recommended, and which was adopted in the liurried 
session of the summer of 1789, has been Ibund to fiilhl, so tar, so 



491 

well, and for so long a time, the great purposes which it was designed 
to accomplish. The general success of the general system, so far, 
may well inspire some degree of caution in the minds of those who 
are called on to alter or amend it. 

By the original act, of September, 1789, there was to be a Supreme 
Court, according to the Constitution, which was to consist of six 
Judges, and to hold two sessions a year at the seat of Government. 
The United States, or such of them as had then adopted the Constitu- 
tion, were to be divided into Circuits and Districts, and there was to 
be a District Court, in each District, holden by a District Judge. The 
Districts were divided into three Circuits, the Eastern, the Middle, 
and the Southern; and there was to be a Circuit Court in each 
District, to be composed of two of the Justices of the Supreme 
Court, and the District Judge for the District; this Circuit Court 
was to hold two sessions a year, in each District, and I need not 
inform the Committee, that the great mass of business, excepting 
only that of Admiralty and Maritime jurisdiction, belonged to the 
Circuit Court as a Court of original jurisdiction. It entertained 
appeals, or writs of error, also, from the decisions of the District 
Courts, in all cases. 

By this arrangement, then, the Justices of the Supreme Court 
were required to hold two sessions of that Court, annually, at the 
Seat of Government, to hear appeals and writs of error; and it 
was required of them also, that two of them should attend in each 
District twice a year, to hold, with the District Judge, a Circuit 
Court. . ■ 

It was found that these duties were so burdensome, that they 
could not be performed. In November, 1792, the Judges addressed 
the President on the subject, (who laid their communication before 
Congress,) setting forth their inability to perform, without exertions 
and sacrifices too great to be expected from any men, the services 
imposed on them by law. It was, doubtless, this communication 
which produced the law of March, 1793, by which it was provided 
that one Judge of the Supreme Court, with the District Judge, 
should constitute the Circuit Court. And, inasmuch as the Courts 
would now consist of two Judges, provision was made, perhaps 
sufHciently awkward and inconvenient, for the case of difference of 
opinion. It will be observed, Mr. Chairman, that by these laws, 
thus far, particular Justices are not assigned to particular Circuits. 
Any two Judges of the Supreme Court, under the first law, and any 
one, under that of 1793, with the District Judge, constituted a Cir- 
cuit Court. A change, or alternation, of the Judges, was contem- 
plated by the law. Therefore, it was provided, by the act of 1793, 
that, in case of division of opinion, as the Court consisted of but 
two Judges, the question should be continued to the next session, 
and, if a different Judge then appeared, and his opinion coincided 
with that of his predecessor, judgment should go accordingly. 

And here, Mr. Chairman, I wish to observe, that, in my opinion, 
the original plan of holding tlie Circuit Courts by different Judges, 
from time to time, was ill-judged; it was founded on a false analogy: 
it seems to have been borrowed from the English Courts of Assize 
and JYisi Pmns; but the difference in the powers and jurisdiction of 



492 

the Judges in the two cases, rendered what was proper for one, not 
a fit model for the other. The English Judges at JVisi Frius, so far 
as civil causes are concerned, have nothing to do but try questions 
of fact by the aid of a jury, on issues or pleadings already settled 
in the Court from which the record proceeds. They give no final 
judgments; nor do they make interlocutory orders respecting the 
proceeding and progress of the cause. They take a verdict of the 
jury on the issues already joined between the parties, and give no 
other directions in matters of law, than such as become necessary 
in the course of this trial by jury. Every case begun, therefore, is 
ordinarily finished. Nothing of that case remains for the Judges' 
successor. If it be tried, the record is taken back with the verdict 
to Westminster Hall; if it be not tried, the whole case remains for 
a subsequent occasion. It is, perhaps, surprising, that the very 
able men who framed the first judicial act, did not see the great dif- 
ference between this manner of proceeding at the English Assizes, 
and the necessary course of proceeding in our Circuit Courts, with 
the powers and jurisdictions conferred on those Courts. These are 
Courts of final jurisdiction; they not only take verdicts, but give 
judgments. Here suits are brought, proceeded with, through all 
their stages, tried, and finally determined. And, as in the progress 
of suits, especially those of equity jurisdiction, it necessarily hap- 
pens that there are ditferent stages, and successive orders become 
necessary, from term to term, it happened, of course, that the Judge 
was often changed before the cause was decided: he who heard the 
end, had not heard the beginning. And, when to this is added, that 
these Judges were bred in ditferent schools, and, as to matters of 
practice, especially, accustomed to different usages, it will be easy 
to perceive that no small difticulties were to be encountered in the 
ordinary despatch of business. So, in cases reserved for advise- 
ment and further consideration, the Judge reserving the question, 
was not the Judge to decide it. He who heard the argument, was 
not to make the decision. Without pursuing this part of the case 
farther, it is quite obvious that such a system could not answer the 
ends of justice. 

The Courts, indeed, were called Circuit Courts; which seemed 
to imply an itinerant character; but, in truth, they resembled much 
more, in their power aind jurisdiction, the English Courts sitting in 
bench, than the Assizes, to which they appear to have been likened. 

The act of 1793, by requiring the attendance of only one, in- 
stead of two, of the Judges of the Supreme Court, on the Circuits, 
of course diminished, by one half, the Circuit labors of those 
Judges. 

We then come to the law of February, 1801. By this act, the 
Judges of the Supreme Court were relieved fnun all Circuit duties. 
Provision was made that their number should be reduced, on the 
first vacancy, from six to five. They were still to hold two sessions 
annually, of the Supreme Court: and Circuit Judges were appoint- 
ed to hold the Circuit Court in each District. Tlie provisions of 
this law are generally known, and it is not necessary to recite them 
particularly. It is enough to say, that, in five of the six Circuits, 
the Circuit Court was to consist of three Judges, specially appoint- 



493 

ed to constitute such Court; and, in the sixth, of one Judge, spe- 
cially appointed, and the District Judge of the District. 

We all know, sir, that this law lasted but a twelvemonth. It was 
repealed in into by the act of March 8, 1802; and a new organiza- 
tion of the Circuit Courts was provided for by the act of the 29th 
of April, of that year. It must be admitted, I think, sir, that this 
act made considerable improvements upon the system, as it existed 
before the act of February, 1801. It took away the itinerary char- 
acter of the Circuit Courts, by assigning particular Justices to 
Particular Courts. This, in my opinion, was a great improvement, 
t conformed the constitution of the Court to the nature of the pow- 
ers which it. exercised. The same Judges now heard the cause 
through all the stages of its progress, and the Court became, what 
its duties properly made it, a Coiyt of Record, with permanent 
Judges, exercising a various jurisdiction, trying causes at its bar 
by Jury, in cases proper for the intervention of ,a jury, and render- 
ing final judgments. This act, also, provided another mode of pro- 
ceeding with cases in which the two Judges composing the Circuit 
Court should differ in opinion. It prescribed, that such difference 
should be stated, certified to the Supreme Court, and that that 
Court should decide the question, and certify its decision to the 
Circuit Court. 

In this state of things, the Judicial System remained, without 
material change, until the year 1807, when a law was passed for 
the appointment of an additional Judge of the Supreme Court, and 
a Circuit allotted to him in the Western States. 

It may be here observed, that, from the commencement, the sys- 
tem has not been uniform. From the first, there was an anomaly 
in it. By the original act of September, 1789, a District Court 
was established for Kentucky, (then part of Virginia,) and for 
Maine, (then part of Massachusetts,) and, in addition to the powers 
of District Courts, there was conferred on these, all the jurisdiction 
which elsewhere belongs to Circuit Courts, and, in other cases, as 
new States were added to the Union, District Courts were estab- 
lished, with the powers of Circuit Courts. The same thing has 
happened, too, when States have been divided into two Districts 
There are, at present, several States which have no Circuit Court 
except the District Court, and there are otJ|er States which are di- 
vided into more than one District, and in some of which Districts 
there is but a District Court with Circuit Court jurisdiction; so that 
it cannot be said, that the system has been at any time entirely 
uniform. 

So much, Mr. Chairman, for the history of our legislation on the 
Judicial Department. 

I am not aware, Mr. Chairman, that there is any public complaint 
of the operation of the present system, so far as it applies to the 
Atlantic States. So far as I know, justice has been administered 
efficiently, promptly, and satisfactorily, in all those Circuits. The 
Judges, perhaps, have a good deal of employment: but they have 
been able to go through their arduous duties in such manner as to 
leave no cause of complaint, as far as I am informed. For my own 
part, I am not sanguine enough to expect, as far as those Circuits 

ss 



494 

are concerned, that any improvement can be made. In my opinion, 
none is needed. But it is not so in the Western States. Here 
exists a great deficiency. The country has outgrown the system. 
This is no man's fault nor does it impute want of usual foresight to 
any one. It would have seemed chimerical in the framers of the 
law of 1789, if they had struck out a plan which should have been 
adequate to the exigencies of the country, as it actually exists in 
1826. From a period as far back as the close of the late war, the 
people of the West have applied to Congress on the subject of the 
Courts. No session of Congress has passed without an attempt, in 
one or the other House, to produce some change: and although 
various projects have been presented, the inherent dilticulties of the 
subject have prevented any etficient action of the Legislature. I 
will state, shortly, sir, and as nearly a^ I remember, what has been 
at different times proposed. 

In the first place, it has been proposed to recur to the system of 
Circuit Courts, upon the principle, although not exactly after the 
model, of the act of February, 1801 . A bill of this character passed 
the Senate in 1819, dividing the country into nine Circuits, and 
providing for the appointment of one Circuit Judge to each Circuit, 
who, with the District Judge of the District, should constitute the 
Circuit Court. It also provided, that the Supreme Court, as vacan- 
cies should occur, should be reduced to five members. This bill, I 
believe, was not acted upon in this House. Again it has been pro- 
posed, to constitute Circuit Courts by the union of the District 
Judges in the Circuit. It has been proposed, also, to extend the 
existing system somewhat in conformity to the object of the present 
bill, by adding to the number of the Judges in the Supreme Court. 
And a different arrangement still has been presented, which con- 
templates the appointment of Circuit Judges for some Districts, and 
the continued performance of Circuit duties by the Supreme Judges 
in others, with such legal provision as shall not attach the Judges 
of the Supreme Court, in the performance of their Circuit duties, 
unequally, to any part of the country, but allow them to be distribu- 
ted equally and fairly, over the whole. This system, though some- 
what complex, and perhaps liable to be misunderstood, is, I confess, 
what appears to me best of all suited to our condition. It would 
not make the Supreme Court too numerous; and it would still 
require from its members the performance of Circuit duties; it 
would allow a proper distribution of these members to every part of 
the country; and, finally, it would furnish an adequate provision for 
the despatch of business in the Circuit Courts. Upon this plan, a 
bill was presented to the House of Representatives at the first ses- 
sion of the last Congress, but it did not meet with general favor; 
and the fate of a similar proposition elsewhere, at a subsequent 
period, discourages any revival of it. 

I now come, sir, to consider whether any, and what, evils exist, 
and then, whether this bill be a suitable remedy. And in the first 
place, it is said, perhaps with some jiistice, that the business of the 
Supreme Court itself, is not gone through with sufhcieut promptitude: 
that it is accumulating: that great delays are experienced, and 
greater delays feared. As to this, I would observe, that the annual 



493 

session of the Court cannot last above six or seven weeks, because 
it commences in February, and the Circuit duties ot" the Judges 
require them to leave this place the latter part of March. But I 
know no reason why the Judges should not assemble earlier. I 
believe it^wauld not materially interfere with their Circuit duties, to 
commence the session here in the early part of January; and if that 
were the case, I have little doubt that, in two years, they would clear 
the docket. A bill to make this change, passed this House two 
years ago; I regret to say, it was not acted upon in the Senate. 

As to returning to the original practice of having two sessions of 
the Supreme Court within the year, I incline to think it wholly inex- 
pedient. The inconvenience arising from the distance of suitors 
and counsel from the seat of government, forms a decisive objection 
to that proposition. % 

The great evil, however, sir, at present experienced, that which 
calls most loudly and imperatively for a remedy, is, the state of 
business in the Circuit Courts in the Western States. The seventh 
Circuit consists of Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. All the other 
Western States have District Courts, with the powers of Circuit 
Courts. I am fully of opinion, that some further provision is requir- 
ed of us, for the administration of justice in these States. The exist- 
ing means are not equal to the end. The judicial organization is not 
competent to exercise the jurisdiction which the laws confer upon it. 
There is a want of men, and a want of time. In this respect, it 
appears to me, that our constitutional duty is very plain. The Con- 
stitution confers certain judicial powers on the Government of the 
United States: we undertake to provide for the exercise of these 
powers; but the provision is inadequate, and the powers are not 
exercised. By the Constitution, the judicial power of this Govern- 
ment extends, as well as to other things, to causes between citizens 
of different States. We open Courts professedly to exercise that 
jurisdiction: but they are not competent to it; it is not exercised 
with reasonable promptitude; the suitor is delayed, and the end of 
the constitutional provision, in some measure, defeated. Now, it 
appears to me very plain, that we should either refuse to confer this 
jurisdiction on the Courts, or that we should so constitute them, that 
it may be efficiently exercised. 

I hold, sir, the certificate of the Clerk for the District and Circuit 
Court of the District of Kentucky, that there are now pending, in 
those Courts, 950 causes. As this is not a maritime district, most 
of these causes, doubtless, are in the Circuit Court; nor has this 
accumulation arisen from any want of diligence in the Judges them- 
selves: for, the same paper states, that 2,000 causes have been dis- 
posed of within the last three years. The Memorial of the Bar of 
Nashville informs us that 160 cases are pending in the Circuit Court 
for the Western District of Tennessee; a number, perhaps not 
much less, is on the docket of the Court for the Eastern District of 
Tennessee; and, I am authorised to state, that 200, or 250, may be 
taken as the number of suits pending in the Circuit Court of Ohio. 
These three States, sir, constitute one Circuit: they extend over a 
wide region; the places for holding the Courts are at vast distances 
from one another; and it is not within the power of man, that the 



496 

Judge assigned to this Circuit should get through the duties of his 
station. With the state of business in the other western and south- 
western States, I am not so particularly acquainted. Gentlemen 
from those States will expose it to the Committee. I know enough, 
however, to be satisfied that the whole case calls for attention. It 
grows no better by delay, and, whatever difficulties embarrass it, 
we may as well meet them at once, and agree upon such remedy as 
shall, upon the whole, seem most expedient. 

And this, sir, brings me to the most difficult part of our inquiry; 
that is to say, whether such a measure as this bill proposes, be the 
proper remedy. I beg to say, sir, that I feel this difficulty as deeply 
as it can be felt by any member of the Committee; and while I ex- 
press my own opinions, such as they are, I shall be most happy to 
derive light from the greater experience, or the better intelligence, 
of any gentleman. To me it appears, that we are brought to the 
alternative of deciding between something like what this bill pro- 
poses, and the Circuit Court system, as provided in the bill of the 
Senate, in 1819. Asa practical question, I think it has come to 
this point: Shall we extend the present system, by increasing the 
number of the Judges? or, shall we recur to the system of Circuit 
Courts? I invoke the attention of the Committee to this question; 
because, thinking the one or the other inevitable, I wish for the 
mature judgment of the House on both. 

In favor of the Circuit Court system, it may be said, that it is 
uniform, and may be made to apply to all the States equally: so that 
if new States come into the Union, Circuit Courts may be provided 
for them without derangement to the general organization. This, 
doubtless, is a consideration entitled to much weight. It is said, 
also, that, by separating the Judges of the Supreme Court from the 
Circuits, we shall leave them ample time for the discharge of the 
high duties of their appellate jurisdiction. This, no doubt, is true: 
but then, whether it be desirable, upon the whole, to withdraw the 
Judges of the Supreme Court from the Circuits, and to confine 
their labors entirely to the sessions at Washington, is a question 
which has most deeply occupied my reflections, and in regard to 
which I am free to confess, some change has been wrought in my 
opinions. With entire respect for the better judgment of others, 
and doubting, therefore, when I find myself differing from those 
who are wiser and more experienced, I am still constrained to say, 
that my judgment is against withdrawing the Judges of the Su- 
preme Court from the Circuits, if it can be avoided. The reasons 
which influence this sentiment are general, and perhaps may be 
thought too indefinite and uncertain to guide in measures of public 
importance; they nevertheless appear to me to have weight, and I 
will state them with frankness, in the hope that, if they are without 
reasonable foundation, I shall be shown it, when certainly I shall 
cheerfully relinquish them. 

In the first place, it appears to me that such an intercourse as the 
Judges of the Supreme Court are enabled to have with the profes- 
sion, and with the people, in their respective Circuits, is itself an 
object of no inconsiderable importance. It naturally inspires re- 
spect and confidence, and it communicates and reciprocates infor- 



497 

mation through all the branches of the Judicial Department. This 
leads to a harmony of opinion and of action. The Supreme Court 
is, itself, in some measure, insulated; it has not frequent occasions 
of contact with the community. The Bar that attends it is neither 
numerous, nor regular in its attendance. Tiie gentlemen who ap- 
pear before it, in the character of counsel, come for the occasion, 
and depart with the occasion. The profession is occupied mainly 
in the objects which engage it in its own domestic forums; it be- 
longs to the States; and their tribunals lurnish its constant and prin- 
cipal theatre. If the Judges of the Supreme Court, therefore, are 
wholly withdrawn from the Circuits, it appears to me there is dan- 
ger of leaving them without the means of useful intercourse with 
other judicial characters, with the profession of which they are 
members, and with the public. But, without pursuing these gene- 
ral reflections, I would say, in the second place, that I think it 
useful that Judges should see in practice the operation and effect 
of their own decisions. This will prevent theory from running too 
far, or refining too much. We find, in legislation, that general 
provisions of law, however cautiously expressed, often require limi- 
tation and modification; something of the same sort takes place in 
judicature: however beautiful may be the theory of general princi- 
ples, such is the infinite variety of human afi'airs, that those most 
practised in them, and conversant with them, see at every turn a 
necessity of imposing restraints and qualifications on such princi- 
ples. The daily application of their own doctrines will necessarily 
inspire Courts with caution; and, by a knowledge of what takes 
place upon the Circuits, and occurs in constant practice, they will 
be able to decide finally, without the imputation of having overlook- 
ed, or not understood, any of the important elements and ingre- 
dients of a just decision. 

But further, sir, I must take the liberty of saying, that, in regard 
to the judicial ofiice, constancy of employment is, of itself, in my 
judgment, a good, and a great good. I appeal to the conviction of 
the whole profession, if, as a general observation, they do not find 
that those who decide most causes, decide them best. Exercise 
strengthens and sharpens the faculties, in this, more than in almost 
any other employment. I would have the judicial office filled by 
him who is wholly a judge, always a judge, and nothing but a judge. 
With proper seasons, of course, for recreation and repose, his se- 
rious thoughts should all be turned to his official duties — he should 
be oiiinis in hoc. I think, sir, there is hardly a greater mistake than 
has prevailed occasionally in some of the States, of creating many 
Judges, assigning them duties which occupy but a small part of 
their time, and then making this the ground fi)r allowing them a 
small compensation. The judicial office is incompatible with any 
other pursuit in life: and all the fiicultics of every man who takes it, 
ou<^ht to be constantly exer<;ised, and exercised to one end. Now. 
sir" it is natural, that, in reasoning on this subject, I should take 
my facts from what passes within my own means of observation: if 
I am mistaken in my promises, the '«onclusion, of course, ought to 
be rejected. But I suppose it will be safe to say, that a session of 
eight weeks in the year, will probably be sufficient for the decision 

63 ss* 



498 

of causes in the Supreme Court: and, reasoning from what exists 
in one of the most considerable Circuits in the Atlantic States, I 
suppose that eight, ten, or at most, twelve weeks, may be the aver- 
age of the time requisite to be spent by a Circuit Judge in his Cir- 
cuit Court in those Circuits. If this be so, then, if the Courts be 
separated, we have Supreme Judges occupied two months out of 
twelve, and Circuit Judges occupied three months out of twelve. 
In my opinion, this is not a system either to make, or to keep good 
Judges. The Supreme Court exercises a great variety of juris- 
dictions; it reverses decisions at common law, in equity, and in ad- 
miralty; and with the theory and the practice of all these systems, 
it is indispensable that the Judges should be accurately and inti- 
mately acquainted. It is for the Committee to judge how far the 
withdrawing them from the Circuits, and confining them to the 
exercise of an appellate jurisdiction, may increase or diminish this 
information. But, again, sir, we have a great variety of local laws 
existing in this country, which are the standard of decision where 
they prevail. The laws of New England, Maryland, Louisiana, 
and Kentucky, are almost so many different codes. These laws 
are to be construed and administered, in many cases, in the Courts 
of the United States. Now, is there any doubt, that a Judge, 
coming on the bench of the Supreme Court, with a familiar ac- 
quaintance with these laws, derived from daily practice and decis- 
ions, must be more able, both to form his own judgment correctly, 
and to assist that of his brethren, than a stranger who only looks at 
the theory? This is a point too plain to be argued. Of the weight 
of the suggestion the Committee will judge. It appears to me, I 
confess, that a Court remotely situated, a stranger to these local 
laws in their application and practice, with whatever diligence, or 
with whatever ability, must be liable to fall into great mistakes. 

May I ask your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, to suggest one other 
idea: With no disposition, whatever, to entertain doubts as to the 
manner in which the Executive duty of appointments shall at any 
time hereafter be performed, the Supreme Court is so important, 
that, in whatever relates to it, I am willing to make assurance 
doubly sure, and to adopt, therefore, whatever fairly comes in my 
way, likely to increase the probability that able and efficient men 
will be placed upon that bench. Now, I confess, that I know noth- 
ing which I think more conducive to that end, than the assigning to 
the members of that Court, important, responsible, individual du- 
ties. Whatsoever makes the individual prominent, conspicuous, 
and responsible, increases the probability that he will be some one 
possessing the proper requisites to be a Judge. It is one thing to 
give a vote upon a bench, (especially if it be a numerous bench,) 
for plaintiff or defendant, and quite another thing to act as the head 
of a Court, of various jurisdiction, civil and criminal — to conduct 
trials by Jury, and render judgments in law, equity, and admiralty. 
While these duties belong to the condition of a Judge on the bench, 
that place will not be a sinecure, nor likely to be conferred without 
proofs of proper qualifications. For these reasons I am inclined to 
wish that the Judges of the Supreme Court may not be separated 
from the Circuits, if any other suitable provision can be made. 



499 

As to the present bill, Mr. Chairman, it will doubtless be objected 
that it makes the Supreme Court too numerous. In regard to that 
I am bound to say, that my own opinion was, that the present exi- 
gency of the country could have been -answered by the addition of 
two members to the Court. I believe the three northwestern States 
might well enough go on for some time longer; and form a Circuit 
of themselves, perhaps, hereafter, as the population shall increase, 
and the state of their affairs require it. The addition of the third 
Judge is what I assent to, rather than what I recommend. It is 
what I would gladly avoid, if I could with propriety. But, on the 
subject of the number of Judges, I admit that, for some causes, it 
will be inconveniently large: for such, especially, as require inves- 
tigation into matters of fact, such as those of Equity and Admiralty; 
and, perhaps, for all private causes, generally. But the great and 
leading character of the Supreme Court, its most important duties, 
and its highest functions, have not yet been alluded to. It is its 
peculiar relation to this Government, and the State Governments: 
It is the power which it rightfully holds and exercises, of revising the 
opinions of other tribunals on Constitutional questions, as the great 
practical expounder of the powers of the Government; which attaches 
to this tribunal the greatest attention, and makes it worthy of the most 
deliberate consideration. Duties at once so important and so deli- 
cate, impose no common responsibility, and require no common 
talent and weight of character. A very small Court seems untit for 
these high functions. These duties, though essentially judicial, 
partake something of a political character. The Judges are called 
on to sit in judgment on the acts of independent States: they con- 
trol the will of sovereigns: they are liable to be exposed, therefore, 
to the resentment of wounded sovereign pride; and from the very 
nature of our system, they are called on, also, sometimes, to decide 
whether Congress has not exceeded its constitutional limits. Sir, 
there exists not upon the earth, and there never did exist, a judicial 
tribunal clothed with powers so various, and so important. I doubt 
the safety of rendeflng it small in number My own opinion is, 
that, if we were to establish Circuit Courts, and to confine their 
Judges to their duties on the bench, their number should not at all 
be reduced: and if, by some moderate addition to it, other impor- 
tant objects may well be answered, I am prepared to vote for such 
addition. In a government like ours, entirely popular, care should 
be taken in every part of the system, not only to do right, but to 
satisfy the community that right is done. The opinions of mankind 
naturally attach more respect and confidence to the decisions of a 
Court somewhat numerous, than to those of one composed of a 
less number. And, for myself, I acknowledge my fear, that, if the 
number of the Court were reduced, and its members wholly with- 
drawn from the Circuits, it might become an object of unpleasant 
jealousy, and great distrust. 

Mr. Chairman, I suppose I need not assure the Committee that, if 
I saw any thing in this bill which would lessen the respectability, or 
shake the independence of the Supreme Court, I am the last man 
to be in favor of it. I look upon the Judicial Department of this 
government, as its main support. I am persuaded that it could not 



500 

exist without it. I shall oppose whatever I think calculated to dis- 
turb the fabric of government; to unsettle what is settled; or to 
shake the faith of honest men in the stability of the laws, or the 
purity of their administration. If any gentleman shall show me 
that any-of these consequences is like to follow the adoption of this 
measure, I shall hasten to withdraw from it my support. But 1 think 
we are bound to do something: and shall be most happy if the 
wisdom of the House shall suggest a course more free of ditficul- 
ties than that which is now proposed to it. 



FURTHER REMARKS ON THE SAME SUBJECT, IN REPLY TO THE 
ARGUMENTS USED AGAINST THE BILL, AND IN FAVOR OF ITS 
POSTPONEMENT. JAN. 25, 1826. 

I HAD not intended, sir, to avail myself of the indulgence which 
is generally allowed, under circumstances like the present, of making 
a reply. But the House has been invited, with such earnestness, to 
postpone this measure to another year; it has been pressed, with so 
much apparent alarm, to give no further countenance or support now 
to the bill, that I reluctantly depart from my purpose, and ask leave to 
otier a few brief remarks upon the leading topics of the discussion. 

This, sir, must be allowed, and is, on all hands allowed, to be a 
measure of great and general interest. It respects that important 
branch of Government, the Judiciary; and something of a Judicial 
tone of discussion is not unsuitable to the occasion. We cannot 
treat the question too calmly, or too dispassionately. For myself, 
I feel that I have no pride of opinion to gratify, no eagerness of de- 
bate to be indulged, no competition to be pursued. I hope I may 
say, without impropriety, that I am not insensible to the responsi- 
bility of my own situation as a member of the House, and a mem- 
ber of the Committee. I am aware of no prejudice which should 
draw my mind from the single and solicitous contemplation of what 
may be best; and I have hstei^ed attentively, through the whole 
course of tliis debate, not with the feelings of one who is meditating 
the means of replying to objections, or escaping from their force, 
but with an unaffected anxiety to give every argument its just 
woiffht, and with a perfect readiness to abandon this measure, at 
any moment, in favor of any other, which should appear to have 
solid grounds of preference. But I cannot say that my opinion is 
altered. The measure appears to my mind in the same light as 
when it was tirst presented to the House. I then saw some incon- 
veniences attending it, and admitted them: I see them now; but 
while the effect of this discussion, in my own mind, has not been to 
do away entirely the sense of these inconveniences, it has not been, 
on the other hand, to remove the greater objections which exists to 
any other plan. I remain fully convinced, that this course, is, on 
the whole, that which is freest of difficulties. However plausible 
other systems may seem in their general outline, objections arise, 



501 

and thicken as we go into their details. It is not now at all certain 
that those who are opposed to this bill, are agreed, as to what other 
measure should be adopted. On the contrary, it is certain, that no 
plan unites them all; and they act together only on the ground of 
their common dissatisfaction with the proposed bill. That system 
which seems most favored, is the Circuit system, as provided for in 
the Senate's bill of 1819. But as to that there is not an entire 
agreement. One provision in that bill was,' to reduce the number 
of the Judges of the Supreme Court to five. This was a part, too, 
of the original resolution, on motion of the gentleman from Virginia; 
but it was afterwards varied; probably to meet the approbation of 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania, and others who preferred to 
keep the Court at its present number. But again, other gentlemen, 
who are in opposition to this bill, have still recommended a reduc- 
tion of that number. Now, sir, notwithstanding such reduction 
was one object, or was to be one effect, of the law of 1801, it was 
contemplated, also, in the Senate's bill of 1819, and has been again 
recommended by the gentleman from Virginia, and other gentlemen, 
yet I cannot persuade myself, that any ten members of the House, 
upon mature reflection, would now be in favor of such reduction. 
It could only be made to take place when vacancies should occur 
on the bench, by death or resignation. Of the seven Judges of 
which the Court consists, six are now assigned to Circuits in the 
Atlantic States — one only is attached to the Western Districts. 
Now, sir, if we were to provide for a reduction, it might happen 
that the first vacancy would be in the situation of the single West- 
ern Judge. In that event, no appointment could be made until two 
other vacancies should occur, which might be several years. I sup 
pose that no man would think it just, or wise, or prudent, to make 
such legal provision, as that it might happen that there should be no 
Western Judge at all, on the Supreme Bench, for several years to 
come. This part of the plan, therefore, was wisely abandoned by 
the gentleman. The Court cannot be reduced; and the question is 
only between seven Supreme Judges, with ten Circuit Judges, and 
ten Supreme Judges, with no Circuit Judges. 

I will take notice here of another suggestion, made by the gentle- 
man from Pennsylvania, who is generally so sober-minded and 
considerate in his observations, that they deserve attention, from 
respect to the quarter whence they proceed. That gentleinan re- 
commends that the Judges of the Supreme Court should be relieved 
from Circuit duties, as individuals, but proposes, nevertheless, that 
the whole Court should become migratory, or ambulatory, and that 
its sessions should be holden, now in New York or Boston, now in 
Washington or Richmond, and now in Kentucky or Ohio. And it 
is singular enough that this arrangement is recommended m the 
same speech, in which the authority of a late President is cited, to 
prove, that considerations arising from the usually advanced age of 
some of the Judges, and their reasonable desire for repose, ought 
to lead us to relieve them from all Circuit duties whatever. Truly, 
sir, this is a strange plan of relief Instead of holding Courts in 
his own State, and perhaps in his own town, and visiting a neigh- 
bouring State, every Judge is to join every other judge, and the 
whole bench to make, together, a sort of Judicial progress. They 



502 

are to visit the North, and the Sotith, and to ascend and descend 
the Alleghany. Sir, it is impossible to talk seriously against such a 
proposition. To state it, is to refute it. Let me merely ask, wheth- 
er, in this peregrination of the Court, it is proposed that they take 
all their records of pending suits, and the whole calendar of causes, 
with them.'' If so, then the Kentucky client, with his counsel, is 
to follow the Court to Boston; and the Boston client to pursue it 
back to Kentucky. Or is it, on the contrary, proposed, that there 
shall be grand Judicial divisions in the country, and that, while at 
the North, for example, none but northern appeals shall be heard.'' 
If this be intended, then I ask how often could the Court sit, in each 
of these divisions? Certainly, not oftener than once in two years; 
probably, not oftener than once in three. An appeal, therefore, 
might be brought before the Appellate Court, in two or three years 
from the time of rendering the tirst judgment; and supposing judg- 
ment to be pronounced, in the Appellate Court, at the second term, 
it would be decided in two or three years more. But it is not neces- 
sary to examine this suggestion further. Sir, everything conspires 
to prove, that, with respect to the great duties of the Supreme Court, 
they must be discharged at one annual session, and that session must 
be holden at the seat of Government. If such provision be made as 
that the business of the year, in that Court, may be despatched, 
within the year, reasonable promptitude in the administration of jus- 
tice will be attained: and such provision, I believe, may be made. 
Another objection advanced by the member from Pennsylvania, 
applies as well to the system as it now exists, as to what it will be if 
this bill shall pass. The honorable member thinks, that the Appel- 
late Court and the Court from which the appeal comes, should, in 
all cases, be kept entirely distinct and separate. True principle 
requires, in his judgment, that the Circuit Judge should be excluded 
from any participation in the revision of his own judgments. I be- 
lieve, sir, that in the early history of the Court, the practice was, 
that the Judge, whose opinion was under revision, did not partake 
in the deliberations of the Court. This practice, however, was 
afterwards altered, and the Court resolved that it could not discharge 
the Judge from the duty of assisting in the decision of the appeal. 
^Vhether the two Courts ought to be kept so absolutely distinct and 
separate as the member from Pennsylvania recommends, is not so 
clear a question as that competent Judges may not ditFer upon it. 
On the one hand, it may very well be said, that, if the judgment ap- 
pealed from has been rendered by one of the Judges of the Appel- 
late Court, courtesy, kindness, or sympathy, may inspire some dis- 
position in the members of the same bench to affirm that judgment; 
and that the general habit of the Court may thus become unfriendly 
to a free and unbiassed revision. On the ether hand, it may be con- 
tended, that, if there b(! no medium of com.munication between the 
Court of the first instance, and the Court of Appellate jurisdiction, 
there may be danger that the reasons of the first may not be always 
well understood, and its judgnirnts consequently liable, sometimes, 
to be erroneously reversed. It certainly is not true, that the chance 
of ju.stice, in an Appellate Court, is always precisely equal to the 
chance of reversing the judgment below; although it is necessary 
for the peace of society and tlie termination of litigation, to take it 



503 

for granted, as a general rule, that that is decided right which is de- 
cided by the ultimate tribunal. To guard against too great a ten- 
dency to reversals in Appellate Courts, it has often been thought 
expedient to furnish a full opportunity at least, of setting forth the 
grounds and reasons of the original judgment. Thus, in the British 
House of Lords, a judgment of the King's Bench is not ordinarily 
reversed until the Judges have been called in, and the reason of 
their several opinions stated by themselves. And thus, too, in the 
Court of Errors of New York, the Chancellor and the Judges are 
members of the Court; and, although they do not vote upon the re- 
vision of their own judgments or decrees, they are expected, never- 
theless, to assign and explain their reasons. In the modern practice 
of the Courts of Common Law, causes are constantly and daily 
revised on motions for new trials founded on the supposed misdirec- 
tion of the Judge in matter of law. Li these cases, the Judge 
himself is a component member of the Court, and constantly takes 
part in its proceedings. It certainly may happen in such cases, 
that some bias of preconceived opinion may influence the individual 
Judge, or that some undue portion of respect for the judgment 
already pronounced, may unconsciously mingle itself with the judg- 
ments of others. But the universality of the practice sufficiently 
shows, that no great practical evil is experienced from this cause. 
It has been said in England, that the practice of revising the opin- 
ions of Judges, by motions for new trial, instead of filing bills of 
exception, and suing out writs of error, has greatly diminished the 
practical extent of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. 
This shows, that suitors are not advised that they have no hope to 
prevail against the first opinions of individual Judges, or the 
sympathy of their brethren. Indeed, sir, Judges of the highest rank 
of intellect have always been distinguished for the candor with 
which they reconsider their own judgments. A man who should 
commend himself for never having altered his opinion, might be 
praised for firmness of purpose; but men would think of him, either 
that he was a good deal above all other mortals, or somewhat below 
the most enlijrhtened of them. He who is not wise enough to be 
always right, should be wise enough to change his opinion when 
he finds it wrong. The consistency of a truly great man is proved 
by his uniiorm attachment to truth and principle, and his devotion 
to the better reason; not by obstinate attachment to first formed 
notions. Whoever has not candor enough, for good cause, to change 
his own opinions, is not safe authority to change the opinions of 
other men. But at least, sir, the member from Pennsylvania will 
admit, that, if an evil in this respect exist under the present law, 
this bill will afford some mitigation of that evil; by augmenting the 
number of the Judges, it diminishes the influence of the individual 
whose judgment may be under revision: and so far, I hope, the hon- 
orable member may himself think the measure productive of good. 

But, sir, before we postpone to another year the consideration of 
this bill, I beg, again, to remind the House that the measure is 
not new. It is not new in its general character; it is not entirely 
new in its particular provisions. The necessity of some reform in 
the Judicial establishment of the country, has been presented to 
every Congress, and every session of Congress, since the peace of 



504 

1815. What has been recommended, at different times, has been 
aheady frequently stated. It is enough, now, to say, that the very 
measure of extending the system by increasing the number of the 
Judges of the Supreme Court, was presented to the House, among 
other measures in 1823, by the Judiciary Committee; and that so 
late as the last session, it received a distinct expression of approba- 
tion in the other branch of the Legislature. Gentlemen have refer- 
red to the bill introduced into this House two years ago. That bill 
had my approbation; I so declared at the commencement of this de- 
bate. It proposed to effect the object of retaining the Judges upon 
their Circuits, without increasing their number. But it was complex. 
It was thought to be unequal, and it was unsatisfactory. There ap- 
peared no disposition in the House to adopt it; and when the same 
measure in substance was afterwards proposed in the other branch 
of the Legislature, it received the approbation of no more than a 
half dozen voices. This led me to make a remark, at the opening 
of the debate, which I have already repeated, that, in my opinion, 
we are brought to the narrow ground of deciding between the system 
of Circuit Courts and the provisions of this bill. Shall we keep the 
Judges upon the Circuits and augment their number, or shall we 
relieve them from Circuit duties, and appoint special Circuit Judges 
in their places? This, as it seems to me, is the only practical ques- 
tion remaining for our decision. 

I do not intend, sir, to go again into the general question, of con- 
tinuing the Judges of the Supreme Court in the discharge of Circuit 
duties. My opinion has been already expressed, and I have heard 
nothing to alter it. The honorable gentlemen from Virginia does 
me more than justice in explaining any expression of his own which 
might refer this opinion to a recent origin, or to any new circumstan- 
ces. I confess, sir, that four-and-twenty years ago, when this matter 
was discussed in Congress, my opinion, as far as I can be supposed 
to have had any opinion then on such subjects, inclined to the argu- 
ment that recommended the separation of the Judges from the Cir- 
cuits. But, if I may be pardoned for referring to anything so lit- 
tle worthy the regard of the House, as my own experience, I will 
say that that experience early led me to doubt the correctness of 
the first impression, and that I became satisfied that it was desirable, 
in itself, that the Judges of the Supreme Court should remain in 
the active discharge of the duties of the Circuits. I have acted in 
conformity to this sentiment, so often as this subject has been be- 
fore Congress, in the short periods that I have been a member. 
I still feel the same conviction; and though I shall certainly yield 
the point, rather than that no provision for the existing exigency 
should be made; yet I should feel no inconsiderable pain in submit- 
ting to such necessity. I do not doubt, indeed, sir, that, if the 
Judges were separated from Circuit duties, we should go on very 
well for some years to come. But, looking to it as a permanent 
system, I view it with distrust and anxiety. My reasons are already 
before the House. I am not about to repeat them. I beg to take 
this occasion, however, to correct one or two misapprehensions of 
my meaning into which gentlemen have fallen. I did not say, sir, 
that I wished the Judges of the Supreme Courts to go upon the Cir- 
cuits, to the eiid that they might see, in the country, the impression 



505 

which their opinions made upon the public sentiment. Nothing like 
it. What I cii.l ;iiy, was, tliat it was useful that the Judge of the 
Su()ieme Court should be able to perceive the application and bear- 
ings of the opinions of that Court, upon the variety of causes com- 
ing before him at the Circuit. And is not this useful.? Is it not 
probable that'the Judge will lay down a general rule with the great- 
est wisdom and precision, who comprehends, in his view, the great- 
est number of instances to which that rule is to be applied.? As far 
as I can now recall the train of my own ideas, the expression was 
suggested by a reflection upon the laws of the Western States, re- 
specting title to land. We hear often in this House of " Judicial 
Legislation." If any such thing exist in this country, an instance 
of it, doubtless, is to be found in the Land Laws of some of the 
Western States. In Kentucky, for example, titles to the soil ap- 
pear to depend, to a very great extent, upon a series of Judicial 
decisions, growing out of an act of the Legislature of Virginia, 
passed in 1779, for the sale and disposition of her public domain. 
The Legislative provision was very short and general; and as rights 
were immediately acquired under it, the want of Legislative detail 
could only be supplied by Judicial construction and determination. 
Hence, a system has grown up, which is complex, artificial, and ar- 
gumentative. I do not impute blame to the Courts; they had no 
option but to decide cases as they arose, upon the be*, reasons. 
And, although I am a very incompetent judge in the case, yet, as 
far as I am informed, it appears to me that the Courts, both of the 
State, and of the United States, have applied just principles to the 
state of things which they found existing. But, sir, as a rule laid 
down at Washington, in one of these cases, may be expected to 
affect 500 others, is it not obvious that a Judge, bred to this pecu- 
liar system of law, and having also many of these cases in judgment 
before him, in his own Circuit, is better enabled to state, to limit, 
and to modify the general rule, than another Judge, though of equal 
talents, but who should be a stranger to the decisions of the State tri- 
bunals, a stranger to the opinions and practice of the profession, and 
a stranger to all cases except the single one before him for judgment? 
The honorable member from Pennsylvania asks, sir, whether a 
statute of Vermont cannot be as well understood at Washington, as 
at Windsor or Rutland. Why, sir, put in that shape, the question 
has very little meaning. But, if the gentleman intends to ask, 
whether a Judge, who has been, for years, in the constant discharge 
of the duties incumbent upon him as the head of the Circuit Court 
in Vermont, and who, therefore, has had the statutes of that State 
frequently before him, has learned their interpretation by the State 
judications, and their connexion with other laws, local or general.' 
if the question be, whether such a Judge be not, probably, more 
competent to understand that statute than another, who, with no 
knowledge of its local interpretation, or local application, shall look 
at Its letter, for the first time, in the Hall of the Supreme Court? 
If this be the question, sir, which the honorable gentleman means 
to propound, I cheerfully refer him to the judgment of this House, 
and to his own good understanding for an answer. Sir, we havo 
heard a tone of observation upon this subject which quite surprises 

64 TT 



506 

me. It seems to imply that one intelligent man is as fit to be a 
Judge of the Supreme Court as another. The perception of the true 
rule of law, and its true application, whether of local or general law, 
is supposed to be entirely easy, because there are many banks of 
statutes, and many books of decisions. There can be no doubt, it 
seems, that a Supreme Court, however constituted, would readily 
understand, in the instance mentioned, the law of Vermont, because 
the Statutes of Vermont are accessible. Nor need Louisiana fear, 
that her peculiar code will not be thoroughly and practically known, 
inasmuch as a printed copy will be found in the public libraries. 

Sir, I allude to such arguments, certainly not for the purpose of 
undertaking a refutation of them, but only to express my regret that 
they should have found place in this discussion. — I have not con- 
tended, sir, for anything like Judicial representation. I care not 
in what terms of reproach such an idea be spoken of. It is none 
of mine. What I said was, and I still say it, that, with so many 
States, having various and different systems, with such a variety 
of local laws, and usages, and practices, it is highly important that 
the Supreme Court should be so constituted as to allow a fair pros- 
pect, in every case, that these laws and usages should be known; 
and that I know nothing, so naturally conducive to this end, as the 
knowledge and experience obtained by the Judges on the Circuits, 
Let me ask, sir, the members from New England, if they have ever 
found any man this side of the North River, who thoroughly under- 
stood our practice of special attachment, our process of garnishment, 
or trustee process, or our mode of extending execution upon land? 
And let me ask, at the same time, whether there be an individual of 
the profession, between this place and Maine, who is, at this moment, 
competent to the decisions of questions arising under the peculiar 
system of land titles of Kentucky or Tennessee? If there be such a 
gentleman, I confess I have not the honor of his acquaintance. 

On the general question of the utility of constant occupation in 
perfecting the character of a Judge, I do not mean now to enlarge. 
I am aware that men will differ on that subject, according to their 
different means, or different habits of observation. To me it seems 
as clear as any moral proposition whatever. And I would ask the 
honorable member from Rhode Island, since he has referred to the 
Judge of the first Circuit, and has spoken of him in terms of re- 
spect, not undeserved, whether he supposes that that member of 
the Court, if, fifteen years ago, on receiving his commission, he had 
removed to this City, had remained here always since, with no other 
connexion with his profession than an annual session of six weeks 
in the Supreme Court, would have been the Judge he now is.? Sir, 
if this question were proposed to that distinguished person himself, 
and if he could overcome the reluctance which he would naturally 
feel to speak at all of his own Judicial qualities, I am extremely mis- 
taken if he would not refer to his connexion with the Circuit Court, 
and the frequency and variety of his labors there, as efficient causes in 
the production of that degree of ability, whatever it may be supposed 
to bo, with which he now discharges the duties of his station. 

There is not, sir, an entire revolution wrought in the mind of a 
professional man, by appointing him a Judge. He is still a lawyer; 
and if he have but little to do as a Judge, he is, in effect, a lawyer 



507 

out of practice. And, how is it, sir, with lawyers who are not 
Judges, and are yet out of practice? Let the opinion, and the 
common practice of mankind decide this. If you require profes- 
sional assistance, in whatever relates to your reputation, your prop- 
erty, or your family, do you go to him who is retired from the bar, 
and who has this uninterrupted leisure to pursue his readings and 
reflections; or do you address yourself to him, on the contrary, who 
is in the midst of aftairs, busy every day, and every hour in the day, 
with professional pursuits.^ But I will not follow this topic farther, 
nor dwell on this part of the case. 

I have already said, that, in my opinion, the present number of 
the Court is more convenient than a larger number, for the hearing 
of a certain class of causes. This opinion I do not retract; for I 
believe it to be true. But the question is, whether this inconve- 
nience be not more than balanced by other advantages? I think it is 
It has been again and again urged, that this bill makes no prj- 
vision for clearing off the term business of the Supreme Court; and 
strange mistakes, as it appears to me, are committed, as to the 
amount of arrears, in that Court. I believe that the bill intended 
to remedy that evil, will remedy it. I believe there is time enough 
for the Court to go through its list of causes here, without interfer- 
ing with the sessions of the Circuit Courts; and, notwithstanding 
the mathematical calculations by which it has been proved that the 
proposed addition to the length of the term, would enable the Court 
to decide precisely nine additional causes and no more, yet I have 
authority to say, that those who have the best means of knowing, 
were of opinion, two years ago, that the proposed alteration of the 
term, would enable the Court, in two years, to go through all the 
causes before it, ready for hearing. 

It has been said, sir, that this measure will injure the character 
of the Supreme Court; because, as we increase numbers, we lessen 
responsibility in the same proportion. Doubtless, as a general pro- 
position, there is great truth in this remark. A Court, so numerous 
as to become a popular body, would be unlit for the exercise of Ju- 
dicial functions. This is certain. But then this general truth, al- 
though admitted, does not enable us to fix, with precision, the point 
at which this evil either begins to be felt at all, or to become consid- 
erable, still less where it is serious or intolerable. If seven be quite 
few enough, it may not be easy to show, that ten must necessarily 
be a great deal too many. But there is another view of the case, 
connected with what I have said heretofore in this discussion, and 
which furnishes, in my mind, a complete answer to this part of the 
argument; and that is, that a Judge who has various important indi- 
vidual duties to perform, in the Circuit Court, and who sits in the 
Appellate Court with nine others, acts, in the whole, in a more con- 
spicuous character, and under the pressure of more immediate and 
weighty responsibility, than if he performed no individual Circuit 
duty, and sat on the appellate bench with six others only. 

But again, it has been argued, that to increase the number of 
the Supreme Court, is dangerous; because, with such a precedent^ 
Congress may hereatler effect any purpose of its own, in regard to 
Judicial decisions, by changing, essentially, the whole constitution 
of the Courtj and overthrowing its settled decisions, through the 



508 

means of augmenting the number of Judges.* Whenever Congress, 
it is said, may dislike the constitutional opinions and decisions of 
the Court, it may mould it to its own views, upon the authority of 
the present example. But these abuses of power are not to be an- 
ticipated or supposed; and, therefore, no argument results from them. 

If we were to be allowed to imagine that the Legislature would 
act in entire disregard of its duty, there are ways enough, certainly, 
beside that supposed, in which it might destroy the Judiciary, as 
well as any other branch of the Government. The Judiciary power 
is conferred, and the Supreme Court established, by the Consti- 
tution; but then Legislative acts are necessary to confer jurisdic- 
tion on inferior Courts, and to regulate proceedings in all Courts. 
If Congress should neglect the duty of passing such laws, the Ju- 
dicial power could not be efficiently exercised. If, for example, 
Congress were to repeal the 'ioth section of the Judicial act of 17^9, 
and make no substitute, there would be no mode by which the de- 
cisions of State tribunals, on questions arising under the Constitu- 
tion and laws of the United States, could be revised in the Supreme 
Court. Or, if they were to repeal the 11th section of that act, the 
power of trying causes between citizens of different States, in the 
tribunals of this Government, could not be. exercised. All other 
branches of the Government depend, in like manner, for their con- 
tinuance in life and being, and for the proper exercise of their powers, 
on the presumption that the Legislature will discharge its constitution- 
al duties. If it were possible to adopt the opposite supposition, 
doubtless there are modes enough to which we may look, to see 
the subversion, both of the Courts, and the whole Constitution. 

Mr. Speaker, I will not detain you by further reply to the various 
objections which have been made to this bill. What has occurred 
to me as most important, I have noticed either now or heretofore; 
and I refer the whole to the dispassionate judgment of the House. 
Allow me, however, sir, before I sit down, to disavow, on my own 
behalf, and on behalf of the Committee, all connexion between this 
measure and any opinions or decisions, given or expected, in any 
causes, or classes of causes, by the Supreme Court. Of the merits 
of the case, of which early mention was made in the debate, I know 
nothing. I presume it was rightly decided, because it was decided 
by sworn Judges, composing a tribunal in which the Constitution 
and the laws have lodged the power of ultimate judgment. It 
would be unworthy, indeed, of the magnitude of this occasion, to 
bend our course a hair's breadth on the one side or the other, either 
to favor or to oppose what we might like, or dislike, in regard to 
particular questions. Surely we are not fit for this great work, if 
motives of that sort can possibly come near us. I have forborne, 
throughout this discussion, from all expression of opinion on the 
maimer in which the members of the Supreme Court have heretofore 
discharged, and still discharge, the responsible duties of their station. 
I should feel restraint and embarrassment, were I to make the at- 
tempt to express my sentiments on that point. Professional habits 
and pursuits connect me with the Court, and I feel that it is not 
proper that I should speak here, of the personal qualities of its mem- 
bers, either generally or individually. They shall not suffer, at 
least, from any ill-timed or clumsy eulogy of mine. I could not, if I 



509 

would, make them better known than they are, to their country; nor 
could I either strengthen or shake the foundation ot" character and 
talent upon which they stand. But of the Judicial branch of the 
Government, and of the institution of the Supreme Court, as the 
head of that branch, I beg to say that no man can regard it with 
more respect and attachment than myself It may have iriends more 
able — it has none more sincere. No conviction is deeper in my 
mind, than that the maintenance of the Judicial power is essential 
and indispensable to the very being of this Government. The 
Constitution, without it, would be no Constitution — the Government, 
no Government. I am deeply sensible, too, and, as I think, every 
man must be whose eyes have been open to what has passed around 
him for the last twenty years, that the Judicial power is the protect- 
ino- power of the whole Government. Its position is upon the outer 
wall. From the very nature of things, and the frame of the Consti- 
tution, it forms the point at which our ditlerent systems of Govern- 
ment meet in collision, when collision unhappily exists. By the 
absolute necessity of the case, the members of the Supreme Court be- 
come Judges of the extent of constitutional powers. They are, if I 
may so call them, the great arbitrators between contending sover- 
eignties. Every man is able to see, how delicate and how critical 
must be the exercise of such powers, in free and popular Govern- 
ments. Suspicion and jealousy are easily excited, under such cir- 
cumstances, against a body, necessarily kw in number, and posses- 
sing, by the Constitution, a permanent tenure of office. While 
public men, in more popular parts of the Government, may escape 
without rebuke, notwithstanding they may sometimes act upon opin- 
ions which are not acceptable, that impunity is not to be expected 
in behalf of Judicial tribunals. It cannot but have attracted obser- 
vation, that, in the history of our Government, the Courts have not 
been able to avoid severe, and sometimes angry complaint, for giving 
their sanction to those public measures, which the Representatives 
of the people had adopted, without exciting particular disquietude. 
Members of this and the other House of Congress, acting volunta- 
rily, and in the exercise of their general discretion, have enacted 
laws, without incurring an uncommon degree of dislike or resent- 
ment; and yet, when those very laws have been brought before the 
Court, and the question of their validity distinctly raised, and neces- 
sary to be determined, the Judges, afHrming the constitutional validity 
of such acts, although the occasion was forced upon them, and they 
were absolutely bound to express the one opinion or the other, have, 
nevertheless, not escaped a severity of reproach, bordering upon the 
very verge of denunciation. This experience, while it teaches us 
the dangers which environ this Department, instructs us most persua- 
sively, in its importance. For its own security, and the security of 
the other branches of the Government, it requires such an extraor- 
dinary union of discretion and firmness, of ability and moderation, 
that nothing in the country is too distinguished for sober sense, too 
gifted with powerful talent, to fill the situations belonging to it 



XT'" 



MISCELLANIES 



[From the N. A. Review of 1820.J 

EXAMINATION OF SOME REMARKS IN THE aUARTERLY REVIEW ON THE 
LAWS OF CREDITOR AND DEBTOR IN THE UNITED STATES. 

The Quarterly Review for May 1819 contained two articles con- 
cerning the United States; one a review of Fearon's* book of 
travels, and the other a review of Mr. Bristed's book upon the 
resources of America. The Quarterly Review is, as everybody 
knows, extensively circulated, and much read in this country; and 
these articles excited, at the time of their appearance, no small 
degree of attention. It would be difficult, we imagine, in the same 
number of pages, to crowd more misrepresentation, or betray more 
ignorance, than appears in these articles, especially that which we 
have first mentioned. To the common vaporings of the English 
presses \v% pay little attention. These oracles are no more to be 
regarded, in their vituperations of the government and people of 
this country, than similar oracles among ourselves, in their abuse of 
the government and people of England. The leaders of such assem- 
blages as the Manchester mob, and the orators in the palace-yard, 
find it convenient to inflame the passions of their auditors by declaim- 
ing, in terms of high panegyric, of the condition of America; wise- 
ly contriving, by a sort of contrast, to breed discontent, and to 
sharpen the feeling of hatred towards their own government. Other 
speakers and other writers, finding or thinking it necessary to re- 
fute these representations, naturally enough run into opposite ex- 
tremes, and set off their own condemnation and abuse of America 
against the extravagant encomiums of their adversaries. All this is 
in the course of things. It is no more than must always be expect- 
ed, in a country with such a government, as that of England; and it 
is of no consequence to us, what is the issue of this little and low 
strife of temporary politics. We suffer about equally by the com- 
mendation of one party and the abuse of the other; and we ought to 
be regardless of both. 

But different, far different, is the case, when a work of estab- 
lished reputation in the literary world professes to discuss our 
character and condition. When gentlemen and scholars undertake 
to write about us, we have more interest in what they say, and are 

* The la.st tJiat we have lieard of this author is, that some tim'! last winter a criminal 
information was moved for against him, in the King's Bencli, for a conspiracy to produce a 
riot, at the election of the Lord Mayor. 



.511 

less disposed to acquiesce in misrepresentation and injustice. The 
writers of the articles in question seem to have considered them- 
selves as speaking about America, but not to America. They do 
not take the United States into the account of those who are to 
read their works, and judge of them. They do not look at the 
reading and thinking men on this side the Atlantic, as forming any 
part of that great tribunal of the Public, to which they acknow- 
ledge a responsibility. In this respect, in our humble judgment, 
they commit an oversight. English scholars, English editors, and 
English politicians have heretofore felt an unconquerable reluctance 
to admit the people of this country to a participation of those hon- 
ors which belong to the civilized world, and the great family of 
Christian communities. They have been unwilling to see that North 
America has ceased to be a colony; and still desire to regard her, 
so far as respects acquirements, talents, and character, like Jamai- 
ca, Malta, or the Cape of Good Hope. This attempt, we may be 
allowed to say, will not succeed. America is entitled to her place 
among the nations, and nothing can keep her from it. It is in 
nature, as it appears to be in the purpose of Providence, that a 
people shall, within a short period of time, exist on this side 
the ocean, speaking the English language, springing principally 
from English origin, adopting English laws, and possessing the 
blessings of many of the most valuable of English institutions, so 
numerous, that the amount of British population, added or subtrac- 
ted, would hardly make a sensible difference. Already the United 
States contain as many people as England, and among them there 
is, if not as full, yet as respectable a proportion belonging to the 
reading class. Whatever appears in England, and attracts atten- 
tion there, in the departments of science, literature, poetry, or 
politics, appears here also, thirty days afterwards, with uniform 
regularity. We receive these reviews, wet from the press, and read 
and reprint and circulate them. We venture to say, that in no 
part of the Island of Great Britain, London excepted, is reading so 
general among the population, as in New England. Having thus, 
as we believe we have, in the United States, a larger reading com- 
munity, than either Scotland or Ireland, how is it, that America is 
not to compose a part, and an important part, of that Public, before 
which a scientific and literary journal, composed and published in 
the English language, is to stand in judgment ? We would modes- 
tly, but firmly, insist on this reasonable |)articipation in the au- 
thority and dignity of public opinion. We hold the right, and 
mean both to exercise and to defend it, of having and of expres- 
sing opinions on subjects of science and literature, and respecting 
those who discuss these subjects. 

It is a natural prejudice, that an old country should be unwilling 
to admit a young one upon any terms of equality. England her- 
self is not thought old enough, nor respectable enough, to assume 
the port and bearing of an equal in the celestial empire of China; 
and there are elsewhere, as well as at Pekin, a dislike and scorn 
for the novi homints. English politicians and English scholars 
entertain towards us, when we press for admittance into their socie- 
ty and fellowship, something .like that feeling, at once scornful and 



51 



o 



jealous, with which the Earl of Wharton addressed the twelve new 
peers in the reign of Queen Anne. Yet this prejudice and this 
reluctance must give way ; this scorn must be subdued, and this 
jealousy, if it be not, as it ought to be, eradicated, must become 

silent. 

We, of the United States, have numbers and power and wealth, 
and a growing commerce, and a most extensive country, and, as we 
may think without vanity, some portion of that intelligence and 
spirit, which belongs to our more cultivated neighbours. Once for 
all, then, if we can express ourselves in such a manner as not to 
incur the imputation of arrogance, we wish to say, that we consider 
ourselves as forming a part, and a respectable part, of the great 
public of civilized and Christian nations; having an interest in such 
subjects discussed before that public, as are not in themselves local 
or peculiar; with a good right of contribution, as far as our ability 
admits, to those discussions ourselves; and above all a right to fair 
dealing and gentlemanly treatment from all who profess to write 
for the good of this public, and to be answerable to its judgment. 

We put forth this claim in behalf of our country; and in behalf 
of the informed and reading class of its citizens. It is for the 
English writers to say, not whether it shall be admitted; that ques- 
tion we do not refer to their arbitrament: but whether, on their part, 
it shall be admitted freely, and with courtesy; or with hesitation, 
reluctance, ill nature, and ill manners. 

We have si)ace at present to take notice of one only of the top- 
ics, discussed in these articles. It relates to the American law of 
. creditor and deblor; about which the reviewer has published extracts 
from Mr. Bristed's book, with comments. Mr. Bristed is an En- 
glishman, by birth and education. He has lived, as it appears, for 
sometime in the city of New York, and has published a book upon 
the resources of this country. Some observations were made on 
that work in a former number of this journal. Referring to these 
observations, we have now only to say of Mr. Bristed's general 
character, as an authority, that he is beyond ordinary measure des- 
titute of all accuracy and precision. There are, of course, many 
important facts collected in this book, and a mass of extracts from 
public documents, in some degree useful, perhaps, to those who do 
not possess the same matter in a better form ; but his own opinions, 
and inferences, and observations upon manners, are not to be 
received but with great allowance. JNIr. Bristed never speaks with 
any qualitication. He has little general, and no intimate knowledge 
of the state of things in this country, and he speaks only from 
what lies within his own immediate and contined observation. With 
him all peculiarities are general truths, and all exceptions become 
rules. We have hardly patience with a man, who could write such 
a paragraph, as the first quoted from his book, in the article in the 
Quarterly Review, which we beg leave to transcribe again, and to 
proceed to make some remarks upon it. 

" The laws of this couutiy generally favor the debtor at the expense of the cred- 
itor, and so far encourage dishonesty. The number of insolvents in every state ia 
prodigious, and continually hicreasing. The,y very seldom pay any part of their 
debts, but get discharged by the state insolvent acts with great facility, secrete 
what properly they please for their own use, without the creditor's being able to 



513 

touch a single stiver. There is no bankrupt law in the United States, and no appeal, 
in these matters, to the Federal courts ; whence in every state the insolvent acts 
operate as a general juil delivery of all debtors, and a permanent scheme, by which 
creditors are defrauded of their property. The British merchants and manufacturers, 
who have trusted our [our ?'] people, doubtless understand this." 

He adds, " that in a single city, New York, more than six thou- 
sand of its inhabitants were declared insolvent in one year." 

Now in the first place, almost every matter of fact, asserted 
in this paragraph, is stated incorrectly and untruly. It is not 
true, that in every state the insolvent laws operate as a general jail 
delivery of all debtors ; there being, in a majority of the states, no 
insolvent law at all. 

It is not true, that there is no appeal in these matters, to the Fed- 
eral courts: on the contrary, there is an appeal, in all cases, from 
decisions in the state courts, on the insolvent laws of the state, to 
the Supreme Court of the United States ; an appeal, which exists 
not only theoretically, but practically, and has been resorted to 
often, and with effect. 

It is not true, that the number of insolvents, meaning such as 
have been discharged under statute provisions, is prodigious in 
every state, and increasing. In most of the states, as we have 
observed, there are no such laws, and of course no ' prodigious 
numbers,' who have been, or who can be discharged under such 
laws. Having now shown how destitute of all correctness and all 
triith is the foregoing paragraph from Mr. Bristed's book, we pro- 
ceed to describe the real state of the case. 

At the formation of the present government in 1787, it was pro- 
vided by the national constitution, that Congress should have power 
to establish uniform rules on the subject of Bankruptcy throughout 
the United States. This power was not exercised until 1798, when 
a uniform system of Bankruptcy was established by act of Con- 
gress. It met with great opposition, arising in a great variety of 
motives, and was repealed four or five years afterwards. It is, no 
doubt, to be lamented that a fair experiment was not given to this 
law. It is a subject on which it seems necessary that there should 
be some legislative provision ; and notwithstanding the frauds 
which will be, and are committed under bankrupt laws, even 
well administered, and which have led such men as Lord Eldon, 
and Sir Samuel Romily to express doubts of their general utility, 
yet we know not any other mode of providing for the cases continu- 
ally arising in commercial societies, and which call loudly for some 
provision. After the repeal of the law, however, individual states, 
acting upon the supposition that as Congress had not exercised tho 
power, or had discontinued its exercise, of establishing a general 
law, for the whole country, they had a right to provide insolvent 
laws as a part of their own local legislation, enacted such laws, 
and gave them operation. Among others, the state of f^ew York 
passed an insolvent law, in the year 1811, and, as was to be expec- 
ted in the first year of its operation, many discharges were obtained 
under it. It was found that this law not only gave too great facili- 
ties in obtaining discharges, but that it led also to fraudulent appli- 
cations from debtors coming from other states. The law was 
65 



514 

repealed, we believe, within a year after its enactment; and it was, 
we suppose, during the period of this very short and extraordinary 
act, that Mr. Bristed finds his six thousand discharged in one year. 
Here then is a single act, from which a general law, and a general 
practice, is unhesitatingly inferred. ' The British merchants and 
manufacturers who have trusted our people doubtless understand 
this.' Does Mr. Bristed mean that the credit of American mer- 
chants is not good, in England? It would be new to us, indeed, 
to hear such a remark. Surely never was, not only all due credit, 
but all undue credit more easily obtained, than by the American 
merchants, for British manufactures. 

The flippant and off-hand remark, that the laws of this country 
generally favor the debtor, at the expense of the creditor, is grossly 
incorrect, and can hardly be pardoned. There may be, among the 
state legislatures, an occasional relaxation, but to say that the gen- 
eral scope of the laws of this country is to favor the debtor at the 
expense of the creditor, is absolutely untrue, and calumnious. We 
still hold, in almost, if not in every state, to the imprisonment of the 
person for debt; we still hold every man, to be in law capable of 
paying to the uttermost farthing; and therefore we apply the old 
principle, solvat per corpus, qui non possit crumena. We discourage 
marriage settlements, and family settlements, to an extent, in the 
opinion of some, far too great; our lawgivers and tribunals all look 
with jealousy on trusts and entailments, and all the various modes 
of tying up estates, and rendering them inalienable; and all this 
simply from respect to the rights of creditors. 

In most of the states also, the fee simple of the debtor's estate 
may be taken, to satisfy the creditor, and lastly, we hold, that what- 
ever laws the individual states may pass respecting insolvents, such 
laws, if they in any manner impair the validity of contracts, are abso- 
lutely null and void. We have from the first introduced and main- 
tained this great and salutary, and protecting principle in the funda- 
mental articles of the national government; and yet Mr. Bristed can 
say, and the reviewers in England can believe, that in this country the 
laws are generally made to favor debtors at the expense of the credi- 
tors! Every well informed man knows the ditficulty of legislating on 
the subject of insolvents; and none better than the eminent living 
judicial characters in England. We now speak of the hisolvent laws, 
as distinguished from the bankrupt laws; since the insolvent laws 
which individual states have sometimes enacted in this country, re- 
semble the cessio bonorum of the civil law, and the insolvent laws of 
England, much more than the bankrupt system of that country. 

We wish, before gentlemen in England give credit to such loose 
calumnies as this of Mr. Bristed's upon the laws for the relief of 
insolvent del)tors in the United States, they would attend to their 
own case, and to the difficulties which they themselves have expe- 
rienced on this subject. This would, avc think, give some modera- 
tion to their fault-linding, and some measure to their language of 
rebuke. We wish they would consult Lord Eldon, Lord Redesdale, 
Lord Aukland, Mr. Sergeant Runnington, the late, and Mr. Rey- 
nolds, the present judge of the insolvent del)tor's court, upon the 
unavoidable obstacles, and ditliculties which lie in the way of uniting 



515 

on this subject the just claims of creditors, with due compassion for 
honest but unfortunate debtors. When they have done this, we 
shall hear with somewhat more patience, what they may see to find 
fault with, in systems adopted by tlicir neighbours. 

It is well known that it has been the practice of Parliament to 
grant occasional relief to such insolvent debtors, as do not come 
within the provision of the bankrupt laws. And it being thought 
expedient to make a permanent provision on the subject, Parliament 
passed the act 53 Geo. III. chap. 102. This act, we believe, was 
drawn by Lord Redesdale, a man of the highest legal eminence, 
and of great experience. It has sixty sections, and appears to have 
been prepared with the utmost care and solicitude, in order that it 
might prevent, on the one hand, the harsh and unfeeling confine- 
ment of honest debtors, and on the other, the practice of fraud by 
the dishonest. This act was limited to November 1818, and to the 
end of the next session of Parliament. The powers and duties of 
the act were to be exercised and discharged by a judge, or commis- 
sioner, who should be some "fit person, being a barrister or lawyer of 
six years' standing at the court," and Mr. Sergeant Runnington was 
appointed to this office. We have already said, that the act con- 
tained all the provision which could be thought of, to prevent fraud 
on the one hand^ and cruelty on the other; an application to be dis- 
charged was to be accompanied with an offer to assign all his prop- 
erty, excepting wearing apparel, bedding, and tools of his trade, 
never exceeding in all twenty pounds; and there must be annexed 
to the petition a schedule of property and efl^ects, and another of 
debts due by the prisoner, and the prisoners' oath to the truth of 
these schedules; and every creditor to be served with a copy of the 
petition and schedule, and notice inserted in the Gazette, and other 
newspapers, and creditors to have a right to appear and to put any 
questions to the prisoner, touching his conduct under oath; and as- 
signees to be appointed to receive his assets, books, &c. of all sorts; 
and then the court, after all, may annul his discharge if it shall ap- 
pear to have been obtained by fraud, or revoke it, if it afterwards 
appear that he has ability to pay his debts. The assignees are re- 
quired to get in effects and debts, and make distribution at the end 
of three months, &c. with proper penalties for perjury; with a train 
of exceptions, such as attorneys embezzling money, persons getting 
money on false pretences, &.c. who are not to be allowed the benefit 
of the law. 

Here then is a law for the relief of insolvent debtors, fully con- 
sidered, and ?^eliberately passed, guarded by all practicable securities, 
and limitations, and placed under the administration of a competent 
and learned court; and what is found to be the result? The law 
was to expire in July last, at the end of the last session of parliament, 
unless continued by another act. To prevent this continuing act, 
very numerous and very respectable petitions were laid on the ta- 
ble of th^Lords and Conunons. Innumerable and intolerable frauds 
were alleged to have been perpetrated in the cases arising under the 
act. A committee of the Hou.^e of Commons reported, if we mis- 
take not, "that during the whole duration of tlie law, and out of 
the prodigious number of cases in which debtors had surrendered 



516 

their property, and been discharged, there had not been received 
above a penny in the pound upon the average of the debts dischar- 
ged." This we quote from memory, but our statement is sufficiently 
exact for our purpose. 

We have thus alluded to the experience of England on the sub- 
ject of insolvent debtors, not by way of an idle retort, but to expose 
the intrinsic dithculty of the subject, and to shut up the mouths of 
half-informed, superficial and self-sufficient scribblers and rebukers, 
on both sides the Atlantic. Would it not be wronjj from the facts 
which we have stated to infer a plausible case of enormous fraud 
and corruption against English justice? If we were to try our hand 
at such a paragraph as Mr. Bristed has written and the Quarterly 
Review has cited against us, might we not say, " England is not a 
country for a man to recover his debts. All her merchants, who 
are debtors, are provided for, by what she calls her system of Bank- 
ruptcy, a stupendous system, which many of her most eminent law- 
yers have been honest enough to confess was productive of unmeas- 
ured fraud and injustice; and as to all the rest of her subjects who 
may owe anything, there is the insolvent debtor's court, where anv- 
body may be discharged; and of this court it is enough to say, that 
during all its existence, although no man can be discharged without 
surrendering all his property, which the law says shall go to his 
creditors, yet in truth no creditor ever gets anything. How much 
the officers of the court get, we do not know; and what becomes of 
that part which they do not get, we do not know, but we do know 
that the creditor gets nothing." We forbear. It is hardly tit to 
write such paragraphs, even for the mere purpose of showing how 
easily they may be written. It is a dangerous curiosity to commit 
sins, only to learn or to show with what facility sins may be com- 
mitted. 

An act of the last session of Parliament was intended, we believe, 
to have continued the insolvent debtor's law to the present session. 
Owing to mistake, however, the purpose was not eliected, and the 
law is supposed to have expired, and proceedings under it are for 
the present discontinued. The subject, however, is before Parlia- 
ment, and it will give us unmixed pleasure if the English government 
shall be able to adopt such legislation on this equally important and 
difficult subject as shall satisfy the necessities of its own case, and 
affiard light to the lawgivers of other countries. In the meantime 
let it not be understood, that the law of creditor and debtor is in a 
worse state for the creditor in this country than in others. As be- 
fore observed, some of the states may have occasioneftly departed, 
and may still occasionally depart from the dictates of enlightened 
wisdom on this subject, trom a disposition to relieve hardship, and 
from a vain and illusory hope of finding, in mere remedial legislation, 
a relief against the pressure of the times, and the stagnation of 
trade. But the general scope and tendency of our laws is to give 
creditors full and ample remedies, and to render property o^' all sorts 
liable for debts. We may say, indeed, that there is no country in 
the world, in which a regard for the rights of property is more like- 
ly to prevail; for in no country was property ever so equally ditfused, 



517 

or was so great a portion of the numerical population interested 
directly in the laws which protect it. We look upon this so equal 
distribution of property, and to the regard paid to the rights of prop- 
erty in this country, as the great safeguards and security of the 
commonwealth. Almost every man among us is interested in pre- 
serving the state of things as it is; because almost every man pos- 
sesses property, and while he cannot see what he might gain, he 
sees clearly what he might lose, by change. We think we may 
perceive here a fair ground of belief in the preservation of our re- 
publican forms of government. It is not less the language of reason 
than of experience, that property should have influence in the stat6, 
whenever such a state of things exists, as tiiat military fame is not 
supreme. If the tendency of the laws and institutions of society 
be such, as that property accumulates in few hands, a real aristoc- 
racy, in effect, exists in the land. This is not a merely artificial, 
but a natural aristocracy; a concentration of political power and in- 
fluence in few hands, in consequence of large masses of property 
having accumulated in such hands. There is not a more dangerous 
experiment than to place property in the hands of one class, and 
political power in those of another. Indeed such a state of things 
could not long exist. We have seen something like it in the ancient 
noblesse of France, in relation to whom the attempt seemed to be 
to make up, in positive power, or artificial distinction, what was ^\ an- 
ting in the natural influence of property and character. The gen- 
erality of these personages, wiYh all their pretensions to rank, and 
all their blazoning of heraldry, were infinitely inferior in respecta- 
bility, and in just influence in the state, to hundreds of the untitled 
but independent landholders of Great Britain. It will be disastrous, 
indeed, for this latter country, whenever a separation shall take 
place between the influence, the indirect, but the natural and salu- 
tary influence of property, and political influence, or political power. 
They would not, and as we have already observed, in the absence 
of direct, military despotism, cannot be long separated. If one 
changes hands, so will the other. If the property cannot retain the 
political power, the political power will draw after it the property. 
If orator Hunt and his fellow laborers should, by any means, obtain 
more political influence in the counties, towns, and boroughs of 
England, than the Marquis of Buckingham, Lord Stafford, Lord 
Fitzwilliam, and the other noblemen and gentlemen of great landed 
estates, these estates would inevitably change hands. At least so 
it seems to us; and therefore when Sir Francis Burdett, the Marquis 
of Tavistock, and other individuals of rank and fortune, propose to 
introduce into the government annual parliaments, and universal 
suffrage, we can hardly forbear inquiring whether they are ready to 
agree that property should be as equally divided as political power; 
and if not, how they expect to sever things, which to us appear to 
be intimately connected. 

These speculations, however, are beside our present purpose. We 
mean only to say, that, in the present state of the world, wherever 
the people are not subject to military rule, the government must 
in a great measure be under the guidance of that aggregate of 

uu 



518 

indirect but salutary influences, of which propertij is an essential 
ingredient; along with other ingredients, doubtless, of intelligence, 
public spirit, and high and fair character. And that as in this coun- 
try almost the whole people partake of the blessings of property, 
so must they also partake in the desire to protect property, and of 
course the laws which furnish that protection. The evils and diffi- 
culties which exist among us, in regard to insolvency, belong to the 
subject itself, and are not confined to our community. The highly 
commercial state of the world has elevated two subjects of legisla- 
tion, in our day, to a very great degree of importance. One respects 
the prevention and punishment of those crimes which are committed 
on property, such as theft, forgery, &.c. which have increased, in 
late times, far more than the more violent offences, such as murder, 
and assault, and the other crimes which spring from passion, revenge, 
or cruelty. The other respects the provisions necessary to be made 
relative to insolvents, and the proper degree in which there may be 
a mitigation, in certain cases, of the ancient rigor of imprisonment 
for debt. These important subjects are full of inherent difficulties. 
None of the ancient codes furnish examples which can be safely 
followed, because such a state of society as exists now existed in 
none of the ancient states. The systems adopted among the modern 
nations are not yet satisfactory to themselves. In France, we know 
that these subjects have lately attracted much consideration. In 
Holland, a revision of the whole system is before a commission ap- 
pointed for that purpose. In England, one of these subjects, the 
reformation of the criminal code, is before a committee of the House 
of Commons, at the head of which is Sir James Macintosh. The 
bankrupt laws are, or lately have been, under investigation before 
another committee, and the insolvent debtor act is receiviiig great 
attention from some of the principal men in either House of Parlia- 
ment. In our own country, we know that Congress has for two 
sessions discussed a proposed system of bankruptcy, and that sev- 
eral of the state legislatures are desirous, as far as their power ex- 
tends, to make just and wise provisions on the subject of insolvency, 
in case the power of Congress to establish a bankrupt system shall 
not be exercised. Intelligent men, we trust, will thus see, that the 
law of credUor and debtor in the United States is not such as to cast 
that imputation on the character of our legislation, which Mr. Bris- 
ted's book would authorise, and which the Quarterly Reviewers 
would confirm and circulate. If our code be not perfect, neither is 
the code of any other nation perfect; and whatever ignorant or pre- 
judiced men may write or may believe about us, those who have 
sense and candor will distinguish between what is inherent in a 
difficult subject, and what is the result of unskilful or dishonest 
legislation. 



519 



LETTER OF MR. WEBSTER, 

ADDRESSED TO REV. LOUIS DWIGHT, SKCRETARV OF 'iriE PRIPOX DISCIPLINE 
SOCIETY, ON THE SUBJECT OF IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT. 

Washington, May 2, 1830. 

Sir, — I have received your letter of the 19th of April, asking my 
opinion upon several questions, all relative to the subject of imprison- 
ment for debt. I am quite willing to express my general opinions on 
that interesting subject, although they are not so matured as to be en- 
titled to influence other men's judgments. The existing laws, I think, 
call loudly for revision and amendment. Your first four questions 
seek to know what I think of imprisonment for small sums. I am 
decidedly against it; I would carry the exemption to debts of thirty 
or forty dollars, at least. Individual instances of evil or hardship 
mio^ht, I am aware, follow from such a change; but I am persuaded 
the general result would be favorable, in a high degree, to industry, 
sobriety, and good morals, as well as to personal liberty. 

You ask, in the next place, what I think of imprisonment for debt 
in any case where there is no evidence of fraud. Certainly I am 
of opinion that there should be no imprisonment for debt, where it 
appears that no fraud has been practised, or intended, either in con- 
tracting the debt or in omitting to pay it. But, then, it seems to me, 
that, when a man does not fulfil a lawful promise, he ought to show 
his inability, and to show also that his own conduct has been fair 
and honest. He ought not to be allowed merely to scnj he cannot 
pay, and then to call on the creditor to prove that his inability is 
pretended or fraudulent. He ought to show why he does not and 
cannot fulfil his contract, and to give reasonable evidence that he 
has not acted fraudulently; and, this being done, his person ought 
to be held no longer. In the first place, the creditor is entitled to 
the oath of his debtor, and, in the next place, to satisfactory expla- 
nation of any suspicious circumstances. 

There are two sorts of fraud, either of which, when proved, ought 
to prevent a liberation of the person, viz: fraud in contracting the 
debt, and fraud in concealing, or making way whh, the means of 
payment. And the usual provisions of the bankrupt act ought to 
be added, that no one should be discharged, who is proved to have 
lost money in any species of gaming; and I should include, in this 
class, all adventurers in loltencs. Having tendered his own oatli, and 
made just explanation of any circumstances of suspicion, if there be 
such, and not having lost money by gaming, the debtor ougiit to be 
discharged at once; which answers another of your questions; for 
the detention of thirty days, before the oath can be taken, appears 
to me wholly useless. 

You are pleased to ask whether, in my judgment. Christians can, 
with a good conscience, imprison, either other Christians, or infidels. 
He would be very little of a Christian, I think, who should make a 
difference, in such a case, and be willing to use a degree of severity 
towards Jew or Greek, which he would not use towards one of his 
own faith. Whether conscientious men can imprison anybody for 



520 

debt, whom they do not believe dishonest or fraudulent, is a question 
which every man, while the law allows such imprisonment, must de- 
cide for himself. In answer to your inquiry, whether I have found 
it necessary to use such coercion, in regard to debts of my own, I 
have to say, that I never imprisoned any man for my own debt, un- 
der any circumstances; nor have T, in five and twenty years' pro- 
fessional practice, ever recommended it to others, except in cases 
where there was manifest proof, or violent and unexplained suspicion, 
of intentional fraud. 

Imprisonment for debt, my dear sir, as it is now practised, is, in 
my judgment, a great evil; and, it seems to me, an effectual remedy 
for the larger part of the evil is obvious. Nineteen twentieths of 
the whole of it would be relieved, in my opinion, if imprisonment 
for small debts were to be abolished. That object I believe to be 
attainable; and to its attainment, I think, the main attention of those 
who take an interest in the subject should be directed. Small cred- 
its are often given, on the confidence of being able to collect the 
debt by the terrors of the jail; great ones, seldom or never. 

Three simple provisions would accomplish all, in my opinion, that 
may be considered as absolutely required to a just state of the law, 
respecting imprisonment tor debt in Massachusetts. 

f. That no imprisonment should be allowed, when the debts, ex- 
clusive of costs, did not amount to $ 30. 

2. That there should be no necessity of imprisonment for thirty 
days, as preliminary to taking the poor debtor's oath; nor any longer 
detention than such as is necessary to give parties notice, and time 
to prepare for examination; and that a convenient number of mag- 
istrates, in every county, should, for the purpose of administering 
the oaths, be appointed by the government; and that such magis- 
trates should be clothed with such further powers as might be thought 
expedient, in order to enable them to make a thorough investiga- 
tion of the fairness or fraud of the debtor's conduct. 

3. That in cases where the debtor had been discharged, if the 
creditor would make oath to newly discovered evidence, proving 
original fraud, or, to his belief, that the debtor had subsequently 
received property, and concealed or withheld the same from his credi- 
tors, it should be competent to such creditor to have investigation of 
such charge, and, if made out, to have execution against the person, 
and if not made out, that the creditor should pay the cost of the 
proceeding. 

Other provisions might doubtless be useful; but if these three 
alone could be obtained, they would, in a great measure, clear the 
jails of debtors, and give general satisfaction, I have no doubt, to 
creditors. 

I ought to add that the imprisonment of females in the common 
jails, for mere debt, is a barbarism which ought not to be tolerated. 
Instances of such imprisonment, though rare, do yet sometimes oc- 
cur, under circumstances that shock every humane mind. In this 
respect, the law ought, in my judgment, to be altogether reformed. 



.s -t:. 



'J- V 



J 






C^ V. 



h^ 



^^ V^^^ 



"^oo^ 






I 






,'\" 



aV 



^ I- 



.v^' ^>.. 



.-i- 



-^^ 



"^ .^-^ 



aN^ 



o 0^ 






- .0^^ 



OO^ 



,^iGB£SS 






















i 


1 



